Understanding the lack of minority representation in graduate programs in computer science and information technology: a focus group study of student perceptions.
Maheshwari, Sharad K. ; Pierce, Anne L. ; Zapatero, Enrique G. 等
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a growing concern over the under representation of women
and minorities in the natural sciences and engineering fields, including
computer science. There is a large body of research material which
documents this fact. The focus of this research was to look beyond
undergraduate education and to investigate the lack of representation of
minorities in graduate and post graduate education in the field of
computer science/information technology. Some of the relevant research
is included here in the following section.
Grandy (1994) conducted a study among college seniors who
registered to take the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) test and who
were majoring in natural sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, and
engineering (NSME.) A stratified sample of 1,651 such college students
was collected. The goals of the survey were to identify some of the
factors that may lead NSME majors to change fields for graduate school,
analyze differences among ethnic groups remaining in NSME, and analyze
differences between male and female NSME majors who plan to remain in
NSME. The research mainly focused on gender and ethnic differences in
NSME majors planning graduate study in their fields. Results showed that
the decision to leave NSME was uncorrelated with gender, race, or GRE
scores. Detailed analysis of gender and ethnic differences among NSME
majors planning to continue in their fields showed small to moderate
differences on many dimensions. There were gender and ethnic differences
in salary expectations, importance on making a contribution to society,
and preferences for various job activities.
The under representation of women and minorities in information
technology (IT) professions is also well documented (National Science
Foundation [NSF], 2000). In fact, recent statistics show that the IT
workforce is comprised of less than 30 percent female and less than five
percent minority professionals (Council of Higher Education
Accreditation [CHEA], 2000). The Computing Research Association survey
on graduate students shows that, between 1993-2003, African American
enrollment in Ph.D. programs in computer science/computer engineering
remained 1% or 2% of total Ph.D. enrollment in these majors (Vegso,
2005). Several recent research studies have been done to determine the
reasons why such an employment gap exists despite the relatively high
demand and attractive salaries for IT workers (Houston-Brown, 2002;
Baylor, 2003), and many more studies have documented the underlying
reasons for a similar gap that exists in science, math, and engineering
professions in general (Landis, 1985; Cohoon, 1999; Thom, Pickering,
& Thompson, 2002; and Armstrong & Thompson, 2003). In a recent
publication, Cohoon, & Aspray (2006) reviewed the existing
literature for the causes of the gender gap in the information
technology field and possible strategies to rectify this problem. These
studies point to the well documented "digital divide," which
limits minorities' access to computing technology; inadequate K-12
preparation, especially in math and science; and a critical lack of
counseling and mentoring as key reasons for lack of recruitment and
retention of minority students in IT majors.
Gates, Teller, Bernat & Cabrera (1999) studied the affinity
research group model which provides students with opportunities to
learn, use, and integrate the knowledge and skills that are required for
research with the knowledge and skills that are required for cooperative
work. Membership in affinity groups is dynamic, i.e., old members
graduate and new members join in; and students come to the groups with
different levels of knowledge and skills. Because of this, an annual
orientation is needed for new members to facilitate their understanding
of the philosophy and goals of the affinity model, understanding of the
research goals of the projects to which they are assigned, learning of
the basis of the cooperative paradigm, and awareness of group
expectations. More importantly, the orientation develops new
members' basic understanding of the research process and provides
information about available resources. The orientation is also important
for established members. It provides them with an opportunity to renew
their commitment to the group, improve their research and cooperative
group skills, and processes within the group with the goal of improving
the group's effectiveness. The orientation also allows faculty
mentors to become aware of members' misgivings and expectations of
the affinity group experience. It also provides a chance to the faculty
member to reevaluate the goal of the model and its success.
Eide & Waehrer (1998) examined the expectations of attendance
in a graduate program and its payoffs affect in the selecting the
undergraduate major. Results explain why some students choose to major
in fields associated with poor job prospects for undergraduate degree
holders. The option to attend graduate school is not a significant
factor in choosing to major in computer science/engineering. Women are
significantly less likely to select majors associated with higher future
wages. The research effort is generally concentrated on undergraduate
college education, hence, focus is recruitment and retention of K-12
students to science and technology related majors in college.
In addition, a number of research studies have identified
"best practices" in programs that seek to address these gaps.
Model programs at institutions as diverse as the California State
University, Northridge (Landis, 1985), Case Western Reserve University
(Boulding, 1985), Texas A&M (Graham, Caso, Rierson & Lee, 2002),
Arizona State University (Fletcher, Newell, Anderson-Rowland, &
Newton, 2001), the University of Maryland (Armstrong & Thompson,
2003), and the Oklahoma Alliance for Minority Participation in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, Technology and Education (Mitchell, 1997), as
well as an ongoing studies at several institutions in different programs
that are successful at recruiting and retaining women, have incorporated
a number of strategies: summer bridge programs; academic enrichment
activities; tutorial services; ongoing peer, faculty, and professional
counseling and/or mentoring; and cooperative and internship experiences
both on and off campus. However, while all of these studies offer
valuable insights into the underlying reasons and possible solutions to
the lack of minorities in the IT workforce, few of these programs
specifically target African-American students, and most are broadly
focused on science, math, engineering, and technology majors. There are
also efforts made to educate teachers and counselors about causes of
lack of representation of minorities and women in technology related
fields (Nicholson, Hancock, & Dahlberg, 2007.) This research focuses
on altering teachers' and counselors' perspectives that could
bring change in the attitude of minority and female students towards
technology related fields.
RESEARCH MOTIVATION
All of the above studies are pointing to one fact that there is a
shortfall of minority students in the field of science and technology
including computer science. This shortfall increases substantially as
one starts to look beyond the undergraduate level to the masters and
doctoral levels. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the
underlying factors that impede the progress towards graduate education
among minority students in the field of computer science/information
technology. Furthermore, it is important to identify some strategies
that encourage minority students to pursue graduate education in these
fields.
This study is an attempt to understand the factors which hinder
students from pursuing graduate and post graduate education in computer
science related fields. Also an attempt is made to provide some possible
paths to design strategies to reduce this shortfall. The study was
conducted in three Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
in Virginia that offer an undergraduate computer science program. The
institutions involved were Hampton University (HU), Norfolk State
University (NSU) and Virginia State University (VSU.)
DATA COLLECTION
Two different methods were used to collect the data. This study
utilized focus groups in the first phase of data collection and a
written survey in the second phase of data collection. In the first
phase, two focus groups were conducted in each institution involved with
the project in the fall and spring semesters of 2004-2005 academic year.
It was not possible for logistical reasons to invite a random group of
students for 30-40 minutes of discussion on graduate education. Focus
groups consisted of junior or senior level classes in which 25-35
minutes of class time was devoted to an open ended discussion of
graduate education: its need, its value, their perceptions, etc. The
role of the faculty member was limited to ask a probing question,
whenever, there was a general pause in the discussion. No audio or video
recording was made. The faculty member took notes about the discussion.
Total of six informal focus groups were conducted in three institutions.
The participation in the focus group was voluntary; students were told
the purpose of the research and were given the option to opt out of the
discussion if they so desired. The results of these focus groups were
summarized to identify the underlying themes.
A written survey was conducted in the second phase of data
collection. The survey instrument (Appendix 1) was developed based on
available research and the experience gathered from the focus groups.
The main objective of the survey instrument was to determine the
influence of family members, friends, teachers, mentors and
student's background on their interest and intention to attend
graduate school. The survey was administered using clustered sampling
technique among randomly selected junior and sophomore classes in all
three participating institutions in the Spring 2005 semester. As with
the focus group, students were given the option not to participate if
they so desired. Results from the focus group and survey are discussed
in the next section.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Patterns within the focus group results were identified after
tabulation of all major points from the three participating
institutions. The results of the focus group indicated four major themes
for lack of representation and interest among students in the graduate
education in computer science/information systems. These major themes
were: a) graduate school admission process and awareness, b) job and
financial issues, c) perceived value attached to graduate education, and
d) perceived level of preparedness.
Graduate School and Admission Process and Awareness
In all three institutions students repeatedly said that they were
either not very aware of the process of graduate school admission or
didn't consider the graduate school admission processes to be easy
and straightforward. Students also mentioned a lack of understanding of
availability of funding, and other options available to finance their
graduate education. This was one area where more personal contacts and
better mentoring/nurturing can help students to consider graduate school
as an option while planning for career choices. A summary of the major
points in this area is included below in Table 1.
Job Market/Financial issues
Students also indicated that the cost of college (undergraduate
education) was high and they wished to start earning money. Furthermore,
they were very aware of the fact that the average salary in their
discipline was higher than many other disciplines as well as the job
market was very good. That is, they would find a job easily and they
would be able to command a decent salary. This is an indication of a
major obstacle for promoting graduate education to our students.
Graduate schools have to compete directly with the job market in CS/IT
area. In other words, computer science graduate programs have to provide
more incentives including better financial support to attract students.
A summary of major points in this theme area is provided in Table 2.
Perceived Value Attached to the Graduate Education
This was the most recurring theme. Students on several occasions
mentioned that graduate school in computer science was not going to add
much market value to their careers. Two main factors which were heavy on
the students' minds were salary potential and skill building
potential of graduate education. The differential in salary with one or
two years of experience compared with one or two years of advanced
college education was not in favor of the latter. Second, students were
clearly indicating that education other than a graduate or post graduate
degree in computer science was more financial rewarding (e.g., MBA or
professional/technical certifications.) Table 3 has a summary of major
points in this area.
Perceived Level of Preparedness
Students also showed some lack of confidence. They indicated a fear
of graduate education and research. They also indicated that they
don't see many role models at the graduate level. Lack of knowledge
about graduate programs also was a factor here. It seems that students
who were interested wanted more information along with some role models
who could alleviate their fears about difficulty and rigor of graduate
school education. A summary of major points in this area is included in
Table 4.
At the next step survey analysis was performed. A total of 153
surveys were collected. 18 surveys were excluded from the analysis as
nothing was filled on those surveys other than the college name and
other demographic information. The statistical analysis was done using
SPSS 12.0.1. Summary of demographic information is provided in Tables 5
through 10. Most of the survey participants (68%) were junior level
students. There was no significant difference in the sample composition
according to classification of the students from three institutions.
Over 90% of the sample respondents were between 20-24 years old. The
majority of students were from urban areas (58%) and there was no
significant difference based on urban-rural mix among three schools
under study. Gender distribution (approximately 50% male and 50% female)
was very homogenous. 38% of students reported their GPAs between
2.51-3.50; approximately 28% reported GPAs below 2.50 and 29% reported
above 3.51 GPA. GPA distribution among the participating schools was
very similar as well, however, VSU's students reported slightly
lower overall GPAs.
This indicated that samples from the three different schools under
considerations were very similar according to age, gender, urban
background and GPA. Hence, it can be assumed that the overall sample was
homogenous for statistical purposes.
Earlier focus group gave us some indications that students showed a
lack of confidence in their preparation for graduate school. To further
investigate this, we added four questions in the survey about their
interest and understanding of mathematics and pure sciences and their
relationship with computer science and related fields. Approximately 55%
of students responding saw no relevance of mathematics courses with
computer science courses (Table 11.) 90% of the responding students saw
no relevance between pure sciences and computer science/information
technology courses (Table 12.) This was a very high proportion of
students who saw foundation courses (mathematics and physical sciences)
for computer sciences being irrelevant to the curriculum. Although it is
also clear from this fact that mathematics and physical sciences were
not contributing to their perceived lack of preparedness. It needs
further investigation to better understand the causal relationship as to
why student feel they are not well prepared for graduate level education
with various curriculum components.
The survey asked several questions about family, advisor, friends
and teachers to determine their influence on student's inclination
to attend graduate school. The instrument had a set of questions that
were designed where students could indicate that they at least would
consider graduate school as an option (see question numbers 40-44 in
Appendix I). For further analysis a composite variable 'interest in
graduate level education' was created. This composite variable had
three levels for students' interest in the graduate education in
computer science/information technology: 'yes',
'no', and 'no preference.' The positive interest was
indicated via five separate questions on the questionnaire (Appendix I:
question numbers 40-44), definitive lack of interest for graduate school
was based on a larger question set of 16 questions in the instrument
(Appendix I: question numbers 23-38) and the rest of students were
considered to have no preference. A summary of interest in the computer
science/information technology graduate school is provided in Table 13.
Approximately 33% of students showed some level of interest in graduate
education.
The cross tabulation of the interest in the graduate education data
with students' classification showed a different picture (Table
10.) There was a significant drop in the "interest in graduate
education variable" from sophomore to junior level. The drop was
even more significant as they reached the senior level; however, sample
size for the seniors was very small.
One of our objectives was to establish whether interest in computer
science/information technology graduate education was influenced by
family members, friends, advisors, teachers and administrators. There
were nine different questions on the instrument asking students to
describe their parents', siblings', professors',
advisors', administrators', and friends' attitudes
towards graduate education. These questions gave respondents wide
latitude: seven levels ranging from "never discussed" to
"insisting upon going to graduate school." After tabulation of
responses for the attitude towards computer science/information
technology graduate education question for each group, a composite
variable 'group member attitude toward graduate education' was
created for each subgroup. The composite variable reduced the seven
levels for attitude into two levels reflecting a positive attitude
towards computer science/information technology graduate education and
absence of a positive attitude towards computer science/information
technology graduate education. Positive attitude was defined as the
following response from the student about a group members'
attitude: "think it would be good for me," "expect me to
go" or "are insisting I go." If respondent selected any
other choice for attitude towards computer science/information
technology graduate education, then it was not considered positive.
These choices included the answers "never discussed,"
"think I should not go," "leave it up to me" or
"want me to go into a different field in graduate school."
To establish relationship between attitudes of different group
members with students' interest in computer science/information
technology graduate education, Pearson's bivariate correlation
coefficients were calculated. Table 15 summarizes these correlation
coefficients and shows the statistical significance (p-value) for a
two-tailed test. Every peer group (siblings and friends) and every
superior group (parents, and school officials) have statistically
significant relationships with the students' interest in the
computer science/information technology graduate education, except the
college-graduate siblings. The result in the college graduate sibling
subgroup may be influenced by the small sample size of that group (18%
of surveyed students indicated having a college graduate sibling.)
It is important to note that a much higher degree of correlation
exists between the interest in graduate education and positive attitude
of professors, advisors and college administrators compared with any
other group. It suggests that students who observe a positive
reinforcement about graduate education from professors, advisors and
administrators have a higher likelihood of considering graduate
education. Among the family and friends, father's attitude has the
highest influence on the student's interest in graduate education.
A similar correlation coefficient analysis was conducted to
establish the relationship between four major theme areas identified
during the focus group stage (Table 16). These factors were
'knowledge of graduate programs,' 'education
preparedness,' 'need to work/financial considerations'
and 'perceived value of graduate education.' All of the
correlation coefficients were highly significant. These factors have
negatively influenced the interest in graduate education. That is, if
financial considerations are more important, then that student is
unlikely/less likely to consider graduate education, at least, in near
terms. Financial factors were at the top of the list in influencing the
students' considerations regarding graduate school. However, the
second most influential factor was knowledge of graduate schools'
process and programs. The education preparedness was ranked third.
The survey analysis confirmed the focus group findings. However,
during the focus group discussions students repeatedly question the
value of graduate education in computer science/information technology
compared with work experience and technical certifications. This factor
had the lowest value of correlation coefficient with interest in
graduate education. This factor needs further investigation.
The survey collected data on several demographic and other
variables as well. The correlation coefficients between interest in the
graduate program and these demographic variables were also calculated.
The interest in graduate education was not significantly correlated to
any of these variables. These factors were type of institution
(public-private), age, gender, background and type of high school
attended showed no significant relationship with interest in the
graduate programs. More importantly, grade point average (GPA) and
relevance of mathematics and science to computer science/information
technology graduate curriculum had insignificant relationship with the
dependent variable. The only other factor which showed significance was
the education level of father. A student whose father had no college
diploma showed strong conviction towards finding a job rather than
considering graduate education.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the focus group and survey, several factors
were identified that influence students to consider or not consider
graduate education in computer science/information technology. These
factors include both positive and negative factors. The positive factors
include attitude of college superiors (teachers, advisors, and
administrators), peer groups and family, especially father. The negative
factors include a strong job market and highly compensated jobs in
computer science/information technology, lack of information about
graduate schools including the process of application, lack of perceived
preparedness and poor market value (perceived or real) of graduate
education. It was also found that factors like grade point average, age,
gender, urban background, interest in mathematics or science do not have
strong relationship with graduate education plans. Furthermore, the
interest in graduate education drops significantly from sophomore level
to junior level. Data showed significant drop at senior level as well
but sample size was too small to confirm it.
It is evident from the data analysis that graduate education in
computer science /information technology currently faces stiff
competition from a strong job market in the IT sector. However, there
are strong indications for possible steps which can be taken to increase
students' interest in graduate education. We can make several
recommendations. These recommendations include that schools should
provide more information on graduate schools and admission process,
organize frequent information sessions for family and if possible,
simplify the graduate admission process. The graduate schools should
facilitate aggressive mentoring programs through teachers, advisors, and
administrators. These mentoring programs should start early like
sophomore year. The schools should increase interaction with
"peer-group" role models to alleviate the fear about
preparedness and to enhance confidence level. It is important that
students learn about graduates from their own schools or areas
succeeding in graduate school to put to rest.
APPENDIX I.
Survey Questionnaire-Interest in Graduate Study in Computer Related
Fields
This questionnaire is part of an attempt to determine reasons why
undergraduates decide to attend or not attend graduate school in
computer-related fields of study. Your responses will help focus faculty
efforts in the three schools engaged in this project to encourage
graduate study. Please complete the following to best of your abilities.
1. What is your major? --
2. What is your classification?
Sophomore -- ,
Junior --,
Senior --,
Other --
For Questions 3 and 4
Choose from the following descriptors for the highest educational
level of your parents:
(1) non-high school graduate
(2) high school
(3) college but no degree
(4) technical school
(5) specialized military training
(6) associate's degree
(7) bachelor's degree
(8) post-graduate non degree
(9) master's, degree
(10) certificate of advanced graduate study
(11) doctorate
(12) post-doctorate
(13) other.
Enter the appropriate number in the space provided.
3. Father -- Describe if other --
4. Mother -- Describe if other --
5. How many older siblings do you have? --
6. How many preceded you in college? --
For Questions 7 and 8 Which of the following best describes your
parents' attitudes toward graduate school in a computer-related
field for you:
(1) never discussed
(2) think I should not go
(3) leave it up to me
(4) think it would be good for me
(5) expect me to go
(6) are insisting I go
(7) want me to go into a different field in graduate school
(8) other.
Enter the appropriate number in the space provided.
7. Father -- Describe if other --
8. Mother -- Describe if other --
For Questions 9 and 10
(1) never discussed
(2) think I should not go
(3) leave it up to me
(4) think it would be good for me
(5) expect me to go
(6) are insisting I go
(7) want me to go into a different field in graduate school
(8) other.
Enter the appropriate number in the space provided.
9. College graduate sibling(s) -- Describe if other --
10. Non college graduate sibling(s) -- Describe if other --
For questions 11, 12, and 13,
In general, which of the following best describes your
professors' attitudes toward graduate or professional school for
you:
1) never discussed
(2) think I should not go
(3) leave it up to me
(4) think it would be good for me
(5) expect me to go
(6) are insisting I go
(7) want me to go into a different field in graduate school
(8) other.
Enter the appropriate number in the space provided.
11. Advisor -- Describe if other --
12. Professors who know you well -- Describe if other --
13. Administrators who know you -- Describe if Other --
For Questions 14 and 15,
In general, which of the following best describes your peers'
attitudes toward graduate or professional school for you:
1) never discussed
(2) think I should not go
(3) leave it up to me
(4) think it would be good for me
(5) expect me to go
(6) are insisting I go
(7) want me to go into a different field in graduate school
(8) other.
Enter the appropriate number in the space provided.
14. Closest friend -- Describe if other --
15. Other students -- Describe if other --
For Question 16,
As of today, list as many of the following that describe your own
position toward attending graduate school in a computer-related field:
(1) I have not given it much thought
(2) I want to go to work
(3) I am not sure what I want to do after graduation
(4) I would like to go but I am afraid I will not qualify
(5) I would like to go but can't afford it
(6) I will definitely go
(7) I want to go into a different field in graduate school
(8) other.
Choose as many as applicable.
16. --, --, --, --, --, --, --. Describe if other --
Do not complete items 17-39 if you are definitely going to graduate
or professional school in a computer related or other field. If you are
planning on graduate study in a computer related field, please go to
question number 40.
If you are currently not planning on graduate study in a computer
science or related field, select a descriptor(s) from the list below
that best reflects your reasoning. Please check as many as applicable.
-- 17. I do not have knowledge regarding graduate programs.
-- 18. I do not like complexity of grad school application process.
-- 19. I do not think I'll meet graduate school entrance
requirements.
-- 20. I do not want to deal with the graduate school workload and
difficulty.
-- 21. My undergraduate program did not prepare me for grad school.
-- 22. Graduate school is beyond my ability.
-- 23. I can get a job with a bachelor's degree where the pay
is good, and I don't think grad school will pay off.
-- 24. I need to begin earning a living.
-- 25. I need a change of pace/lifestyle from college life.
-- 26. I am tired of going to school
-- 27. I believe my undergrad program will provide me with the
skills needed to get a good job and that grad school will not add that
much.
-- 28. I can't afford grad school.
-- 29. There are not enough scholarship opportunities from colleges
and federal government.
-- 30. My family wants me to go to work.
-- 31. I am no longer interested in working with or studying
computer-related topics.
-- 32. I should not have majored in a computer-related field.
-- 33. I value experience more than graduate education.
-- 34. I think management education is more important after my
undergraduate degree.
-- 35. I don't see many good graduate computer science
programs in the Historically Black Colleges Universities.
-- 36. I don't see many minorities' students in the
graduate CS programs.
-- 37. I believe that technical certifications are more valuable
than graduate school.
-- 38. I don't see many minorities' role models in
computer sciences.
-- 39. Other, please describe --
Please respond to questions from 40-44, if you are currently
planning graduate study in a computer related field.
Select all the applicable from the list below.
-- 40. Have you done guided research as an undergraduate?
-- 41. Have you written extensive research papers or technical
reports other then course related papers?
-- 42. Have you had an internship while in college?
-- 43. Have you attended special programs for graduate school
preparation?
-- 44. Have you had a cooperative education experience while in
college?
Tell us something about yourself:
45. Gender M F
46. Age
Under 20
20-22
23-24
25-26
Over 26
47. State of domicile --
48. Your high school district is best described as: Urban -- Rural
--
49. You have attended
(1) regular public high school
(2) private/faith-based high school
(3) science and technology high school/program
(4) magnet high school/program
(5) charter high schools
(6) other.
Please select one of the above that describes your high school
education the best_ Describe if other --
50. College GPA
(1) 2.0-2.50
(2) 2.51-3.00
(3) 3.01-3.50
(4) 3.51-4.00
(5) Over 4.00
51. Number of courses you have already completed in an IT, CS, MIS
etc. environment -- .
52. Do you think all mathematics classes required in the program
have direct relationship with your current major?
Yes --
No --
Don't know --
53. Do you think all pure science classes required in the program
have direct relationship with your current major?
Yes --
No --
Don't know --
54. Degree of your interest in the highest level of mathematics
course you have taken, can be best described as:
Very high --
High --
Acceptable --
Low --
Very low --
55. Degree of your interest in the highest level of pure science
course you have taken, can be best described as:
Very high --
High -- Acceptable -- Low --
Very low --
56. Are there any comments regarding the topics and issues referred
to in this questionnaire that you would like to discuss?
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant #
CNS 0420473, 2004-2005.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, E., & Thompson, K. (2003). Strategies for Increasing
Minorities in the Sciences. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science
and Engineering. 9 (2).
Baylor, S. J. (2003). Pursuing Critical Mass: The Coalition to
Diversify Computing. Retrieved January 5, 2004. Web Site:
http://www.npaci.edu/envision/v14.3/cdc.html.
Boulding, M.E. (1985). Recruitment and Retention. In Landis, R.B.
(Ed.), Handbook on Improving the Retention and Graduation of Minorities
in Engineering. New York: The National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering, Inc.
Council of Higher Education Accreditation: CHEA (2000). Research
and Information. Retrieved March 12, 2005. Web Site:
http://www.chea.org.
Cohoon, J. M. (1999). Departmental Differences Can Point the Way to
Improving Female Retention in Computer Science. ACM: SIGCSE Bulletin. 31
(1).
Cohoon, J. M., & Aspray, W. (2006). Women and Information
Technology: Research on Under-Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eide, E., & Waehrer, G. (1998). The Role of the Option Value of
College Attendance in College Major Choice. Economics of Education
Review. 17 (1).
Fletcher, S. L.; Newell, D.C.; Anderson-Rowland, M.R. & Newton,
L.D.(2001). The Women In Applied Science And Engineering Summer Bridge
Program: Easing the Transition For First-Time Female Engineering
Students. In Proceeding of 31th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, Reno, NV, October.
Gates, A. Q.; Teller, P. J.; Bernat, A. & Cabrera S. (1999). A
Cooperative Model for Orienting Students to Research Groups. In
Proceedings of the 29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San
Juan, PR, November.
Graham, J.M., Caso, R., Rierson, J., & Lee, J. (2002). The
Impact of The Texas LSAMP on Under-Represented Minority Students at
Texas A&M University's College of Engineering: A
Multi-Dimensional Longitudinal Study. In Proceedings of the 32nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA, November.
Grandy, J. (1994). Gender and Ethnic Differences among Science and
Engineering Majors: Experiences, Achievements, and Expectations. (GRE
Board Research Report No. 92-03R) Princeton, NJ. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED388502).
Houston-Brown, C. K. (2002) Perceived Barriers To African Americans
And Hispanics Seeking Information Technology (Doctoral Dissertation
University of La Verne, La Verne, CA). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63, 06A.
Landis, R.B. (Ed.) (1985). Handbook on Improving the Retention and
Graduation of Minorities in Engineering. New York: The National Action
Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc.
National Science Foundation (2000). NSF Workshops Report on Under
representation of Women and Minorities in Information Technology.
(National Science Foundation Report Number NSF PR 00-40 - June 7, 2000.)
Nicholson, K., Hancock, D., & Dahlberg, T. (2007). Preparing
Teachers and Counselors to Help Under-Represented Populations Embrace
the Information Technology Field. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education. 15 (1).
Mitchell, Jr., D. (1997). Oklahoma Alliance for Minority
Participation in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Technology, and
Education. (1997 Report for "Program Effectiveness" Reviews,
NSF). Retrieved January 11, 2004. Web Site:
http://ls-okamp.biochem.okstate.edu/images/stories/97PER.pdf.
Thom, M.; Pickering M., & Thompson, R.E. (2002). Understanding
the Barriers to Recruiting Women in Engineering and Technology Programs.
In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Boston, MA, November.
Vegso, J. (2005). CRA Taulbee Trends: Ph.D. Programs and Ethnicity.
Computing Research Association Survey. Retrieved April 15, 2006. Web
Site: http://www.cra.org/info/taulbee/ethnicity.html.
Sharad K. Maheshwari, Hampton University
Anne L. Pierce, Hampton University
Enrique G. Zapatero, Norfolk State University
Table 1: Summary of Focus Group Themes Related
to the Admission Process
No. Comments on the Admission Process Theme
1. Applying to grad school is too long a
process--application, GRE, letters, applying for
funding, etc. GRE preparatory courses were
attended only by 3 students. Some mentioned the
hassle of application-long process, preparation
for exams, GRE, etc. or Grad school application
process is long. Involves separate preparation.
Students say that they don't have that much time.
2. Preparation is important, mostly on the strategies
for taking the graduate admission tests. Graduate
admission tests (both GMAT and GRE) are perceived
as a major hurdle "... you know these tests are
skewed against minorities.."... we do not test
well on these types of exams...", "... I heard
that if you retake it, they still use the lowest
score ...", "... a friend of mine told me it was
impossible to prepare for it [GMAT] since it
[GMAT] does not test knowledge ...", "... I was
advised to take it 'cold' [without any
preparation]..."
3. Students in general are not aware of the number of
opportunities for graduate school support. Lack of
information about graduate school or students not
being aware of graduate school support: RAs, TAs,
LAs, etc.
4. Perception of graduate school being very hard; it
requires a lot of reading and research work.
Undergraduate education is challenging enough, not
ready for more academic work. Struggled at
undergraduate and hence do not think attending
graduate school is possible.
5. Lack of research experience.
6. Their undergraduate school does not offer graduate program.
7. Affirmative Action set asides for graduate school
admissions for minorities are gone "... see what
has happened at the University of Michigan ...", "...
the current administration [federal government]
has an agenda to destroy Affirmative Action,
especially in higher education."
8. Most graduate programs are in majority
institutions. Some minority students feel they
might be shunned or kept apart from the majority.
Other schools have a lot more resources, which
translated to some fear of other schools being
harder or superior. Perceptions as of other
schools are teaching more at the undergraduate
level as these other schools have more resources
to prepare their students better. Department's
ranking was also an issue in the mind of a few
students. Perception that they are not prepared
adequately. Certain cutting edge courses are not
taught or are not part of the curriculum in these
schools (for example information security.)
9. Difficult to connect with other schools in
graduate program.
Table 2: Summary of Focus Group Themes Related to the Job Market
No. Comments on the Job Market Theme
1. Going to graduate school in CS-IT is not as
necessary to secure a good job compared with other
majors in education or liberal arts. Salaries are
good enough after undergraduate degree; why bother
with more education. Postpone graduate education
from the immediate future after undergraduate
degree. Currently, main goal is to find a job and
start making money and become financially
independent. Main motivator is earning enough
money to become independent--we need to ask about
influence of parents here. Most of the time what
you learn at undergraduate school is enough to get
a job.
2. "... the opportunity loss of delaying employment
in lieu of higher education ..." Loans are too
much to pay after undergraduate or cannot afford
more loans for graduate education. The concern
about repaying student loans for undergraduate
education while accumulating more debt for
graduate school.
3. Some students are first-time family graduates from
a college. Why bother to extend my education? Why
wait to finish my education when there are jobs
waiting for me?
4. Learning can take place at the workplace; why go
to grad school. You will learn more on the job.
Experience is more important than academic work.
5. Corporate world needs mix of business education
and technical skills; MBA is more important for
career than masters in CS/IT. Graduate degree in
business is more valued in their mind as that is
considered a ticket to moving up on the corporate
ladder. "Will I get a job after master's degree or
will I get a better job after masters? Master's
degree may be an overkill of education."
6. Financing grad school is an issue. Want to go to
grad school only if employer pays for it and can
be done on a part time basis. "I don't want to pay
for the education; will consider grad school only
if it is paid for."
Table 3: Summary of Focus Group Themes Related to the Value
of Graduate Education
No. Comments on the Value of Graduate Education Theme
1. Students had a view that college education (at least higher
level education) is not as important as obtaining
certificates in the technical skills. Certificate programs
are more valuable than grad school.
2. Learned enough "why bother with more education?" "How will
it help? Programming is an art so experience is more
important." One can teach a lot of programming and other
technical things to oneself, once you have a baseline
understanding. Why do you need grad school?
3. "What is the motivation of going to grad school?" Want to
work and make money. Is it worth the difference in salary
vs. assistantships over the long term?
4. Long term perspective is missing. Education is equated to
what you can make, what you can afford to buy and buy it
now.
5. Not passionate about any further education. Field is too
broad and is difficult to stay focused.
Table 4: Summary of Focus Group Themes Related To
The Level of Preparedness
No. Comments on the Perceived Level of Preparedness Theme
1. Department's ranking was also an issue in the mind of a few
students. Students are not aware of the number of schools
accredited by the same organization as theirs.
2. There was a general lack of information about grad schools.
This may be due to the fact that they are not considering
graduate school or recruitment efforts for graduate schools
are not very strong. "It is my opinion that we do not have
an abundance of role models we could emulate." "We need to
create a "graduate school" mentality among our students."
3. Perception as if other schools with more resources are
teaching better and preparing their students at higher
level. Other schools have a lot more resources; some fear
other schools are very hard/ superior.
4. Students are not aware of the general education focus placed
on the undergraduate programs versus the special knowledge
developed at the graduate level.
5. Lack of emphasis on research at the undergraduate level.
Students do very little guided research. Most schools do not
offer a research methods undergraduate course. The closest
they get to experimental design is in a second course of
statistics which is compressed with management science
topics into a single course offering (DSC 376--Statistics
and Quantitative Methods). Lack of research preparedness.
This had to do with perceived (or perhaps very real!)
quantitative skills weakness. This affects the students'
performance in calculus, statistics, management science,
operations management, and other quantitative courses which
serve as a foundation to do research.
6. GPA isn't high enough/Afraid of GREs. Difficult to connect
with other schools in graduate program.
7. Undergraduate is challenging enough/Graduate school is too
challenging
Table 5: Frequency Count by Schools
School
Name Type Frequency
HU Private 45
NSU Public 46
VSU Public 44
TOTAL 135
Table 6: Distribution of Classifications by Schools
School Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
HU 3 13 28 1
NSU 1 13 32 0
VSU 1 7 32 4
TOTAL 5 33 92 5
Table 7: Distribution of Age by Schools
School Under 20 20-22 23-24 25-26 over 26
HU 2 36 5 0 1
NSU 0 30 10 1 4
VSU 0 33 7 0 3
TOTAL 2 99 22 1 8
Table 8: Distribution of Urban-Rural Background by Schools
School Urban Rural
HU 29 14
NSU 22 18
VSU 28 14
TOTAL 79 46
Table 9: Distribution of Gender by Schools
School Male Female
HU 27 16
NSU 18 26
VSU 23 20
TOTAL 68 62
Table 10: Distribution of GPA by Schools
School 2.00-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00 Over 4.00
HU 10 6 8 17 2
NSU 9 12 13 4 5
VSU 19 7 5 8 3
TOTAL 38 25 26 29 10
Table 11: Distribution of Relevance of
Mathematics by Schools
School Yes No Don't Know
HU 21 22 1
NSU 16 28 0
VSU 18 24 0
TOTAL 55 74 1
Table 12: Distribution of Relevance of
Pure Sciences by Schools
School Yes No Don't Know
HU 6 31 7
NSU 9 34 2
VSU 2 37 3
TOTAL 17 102 12
Table 13: Interest in Computer Science
Graduate Education
Interest Grad Frequency Percentage
School
No Preference 19 14.1%
No 71 52.6%
Yes 45 33.3%
Table 14: Distribution of Interest in Computer Science/
Information Technology Graduate Education by Classification
Interest in Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Graduate School
No Preference 60% 9.1% 14.1% 0.0%
Yes 20.0% 42.4% 31.5% 20.0%
No 20.0% 48.5% 54.3% 80.0%
Table 15: Bivariate Correlation Coefficients Between
Interest in Computer Science/Information
Technology Education and Attitude of Various Groups
Groups Pearson's Significance
Correlation (2-tail)
Coefficient.
Mother's Attitude 0.189 0.028
Father's Attitude 0.280 0.001
CollegeGraduate Sibling's Attitude 0.108 0.213
Non_College_Graduate Sibling's Attitude 0.173 0.044
Advisors' Attitude 0.328 0.000
Professors' Attitude 0.338 0.000
Administrator's Attitude 0.316 0.000
Close Friends' Attitude 0.200 0.020
Other Friends' Attitude 0.221 0.010
Table 16: Bivariate Correlation Coefficients between
Interest in Computer Science/Information Technology
Education and Other Independent Variables
Factors Pearson's Significance
Correlation (2-tail)
Coefficient.
Knowledge Graduate -0.500 0.000
Schools and Programs
Education Preparedness -0.386 0.000
Want To Work/Need Money -0.542 0.000
Value Technical Education -0.303 0.000
/Experience
