2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies
  4. Volume 27, Issue 2/3
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 2/3
  • ISSN: 1388-3186
  • E-ISSN: 2352-2437
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

We present our stance on teaching programming with the aim of increasing reflexivity amongst university educators through dissecting and destroying pervasive anti-pedagogical gendered framings. From the so-called male geek trope that dominates Global North/Western perceptions of technology to the actively anti-feminist stances such demographics espouse: programming has a sexism problem. Herein, we touch on how and why programming is so gendered in the present; we expound on how we manage this in our classrooms and in our mentorship relationships; and we explain how to keep doing so moving forwards. Through weaving examples of programming into the text, it is demonstrated that basic coding concepts can be conveyed with little effort. Additionally, example dialogues – exchanges between teachers and students and between educators – are worked through to counteract inappropriate or harmful framings. Finally, we list some ground rules, concrete dos and don’ts, for us to consider going forwards. Ultimately, as educators, we have a twofold obligation, for our students to a) learn programming, and for them to b) unlearn problematic perceptions of who can code.

© Olivia Guest & Samuel H. Forbes. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES
2024-09-01
2024-11-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13883186/27/2/3/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abbiss, J. (2008). Rethinking the ‘problem’ of gender and IT schooling: Discourses in literature. Gender and Education, 20(2), 153–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aelenei, C., Martinot, D., Sicard, A., & Darnon, C. (2019). When an academic culture based on self-enhancement values undermines female students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and academic choices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(3), 373–389.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aiello, L.C. (2016). The multifaceted impact of Ada Lovelace in the digital age. Artificial Intelligence, 235, 58–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, N.D. (2016). A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 226–234.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Angeli, C. (2022). The effects of scaffolded programming scripts on pre-service teachers’ computational thinking: Developing algorithmic thinking through programming robots. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 31, 100329.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Angeli, C., & Georgiou, K. (2023). Investigating the effects of gender and scaffolding in developing preschool children’s computational thinking during problemsolving with bee-bots. Frontiers in Education, 7.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106185.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Basman, A. (2017). If what we made were real: Against imperialism and cartesianism in computer science, and for a discipline that creates real artifacts for real communities, following the faculties of real cognition. PPIG, 23.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Berry, A., McKeever, S., Murphy, B., & Delany, S.J. (2022). Addressing the ‘leaky pipeline’: A review and categorisation of actions to recruit and retain women in computing education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.06113.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Beyer, K. W. (2012). Grace Hopper and the invention of the information age. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Birhane, A., & Guest, O. (2021). Towards decolonising computational sciences. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 1, 60-73.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Blum, L., & Frieze, C. (2005). The evolving culture of computing: Similarity is the difference. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 110–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bocconi, S., Dini, S., Ferlino, L., Martinoli, C., & Ott, M. (2007). ICT educational tools and visually impaired students: Different answers to different accessibility needs. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services, 491–500.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, 1, 25.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burrill, C. (1985). The sensitive period hypothesis: A review of literature regarding acquisition of a native-like pronunciation in a second language. Paper presented at a meeting of the TRI-TESOL conference, Bellevue, WA.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Busjahn, T., & Schulte, C. (2013). The use of code reading in teaching programming. Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Connell, S.M., & Janssen-Lauret, F. (2022). Lost voices: On counteracting exclusion of women from histories of contemporary philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 30(2), 199–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Jonge Akademie. (2021). A smarter academic year. Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://www.dejongeakademie.nl/documenten/handlerdownloadfiles.ashx?idnv=2043173
     [Google Scholar]
  20. De Wit, S., Hermans, F., Specht, M., & Aivaloglou, E. (2024). Gender, social interactions and interests of characters illustrated in scratch and python programming books for children. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. De Wit, S., Hermans, F., Specht, M., & Aivaloglou, E. (2023). Exploring the effects of the Hedy user interface on the development of cs interest in girls. 10th ACM Celebration of Women in Computing womENcourage: Computing Connecting Everyone.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dresden, B.E., Dresden, A.Y., Ridge, R.D., & Yamawaki, N. (2018). No girls allowed: Women in male-dominated majors experience increased gender harassment and bias. Psychological reports, 121(3), 459–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Erscoi, L., Kleinherenbrink, A.V., & Guest, O. (2023). Pygmalion displacement: When humanising ai dehumanises women. SocArXiv. February, 11.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Essanhaji, Z. (2023). The (im)possibility of complaint: On efforts of inverting and (en)countering the university. Gender and Education, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, C.L. (2020). Broad band: The untold story of the women who made the internet. New York: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: WW Norton & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Forbes, S.H., Aneja, P., & Guest, O. (2022). The myth of normative development. Infant and Child Development, 33(1), e2393.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ford, P. (2015). What is code? if you don’t know, you need to read this. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gage, M.J. (1883). Woman as an inventor. The North American Review, 136(318), 478–489.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gilsing, M., Pelay, J., & Hermans, F. (2022). Design, implementation and evaluation of the Hedy programming language. Journal of Computer Languages, 73, 101158.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and society, 4(3), 301–331.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Guest, O. (2018). Why women in psychology can’t program. Retrieved from http://neuroplausible.com/programming
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hamilton, M.H., & Hackler, W.R. (2008). Universal systems language: Lessons learned from apollo. Computer, 41(12), 34–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hampshire, A., Highfield, R.R., Parkin, B.L., & Owen, A.M. (2012). Fractionating human intelligence. Neuron, 76(6), 1225–1237.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Harlizius-Klück, E. (2017). Weaving as binary art and the algebra of patterns. Textile, 15(2), 176–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hermans, F. (2021). The programmer’s brain: What every programmer needs to know about cognition. Shelter Island, NY: Manning Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hermans, F. (2024). [onward23] creating a learnable and inclusive programming language. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzXiup5Gm7Y
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hermans, F., & Aldewereld, M. (2017). Programming is writing is programming. Companion Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming, 1–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hicks, M. (2017). Programmed inequality: How Britain discarded women technologists and lost its edge in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnson, J., Madill, A., Koutsopoulou, G.Z., Brown, C., & Harris, R. (2020). Tackling gender imbalance in psychology. Psychologist, 33, 5–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kelly, P., Wang, Y., & Mizunoya, S. (2022). How do the educational experiences of girls and boys differ? Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/data-for-action/how-do-educational-experiences-ofgirls-and-boys-differ/
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kleiman, K. (2022). Proving ground: The untold story of the six women who programmed the world’s first modern computer. Hurst Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kramarae, C. (1988). Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kyndt, E., Berghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Bulckens, L. (2013). ‘Time is not enough’: Workload in higher education: A student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 684–698.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2010). The perception of workload and task complexity and its influence on students’ approaches to learning: A study in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 393–415.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lee Shetterly, M. (2016). Hidden figures: The American dream and the untold story of the Black women mathematicians who helped win the space race. New York: William Morrow.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lehtinen, T., Lukkarinen, A., & Haaranen, L. (2021). Students struggle to explain their own program code. Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lewis, C.M., Anderson, R.E., & Yasuhara, K. (2016). ‘I don’t code all day’: Fitting in computer science when the stereotypes don’t fit. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on international computing education research, 23–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lien, T. (2013). No girls allowed. Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/nogirls-allowed
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Light, T. P., Nicholas, J., & Bondy, R. (2015). Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lind-Guzik, A. (2023). You should give a sh*t about: Gender apartheid. Retrieved from https://conversationalist.org/2023/05/18/end-gender-apartheid-today-open-letter-interviewgissou-nia-human-rights-lawyer/
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Little, B., & Winch, A. (2020). Patriarchy in the digital conjuncture: An analysis of Google’s James Damore. New Formations, 102(102), 44–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Long, K. (2018). Why don’t women code? a UW lecturer’s answer draws heat. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/why-dont-women-code-a-uw-lecturersanswer-draws-heat/
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Macrides, E., Miliou, O., & Angeli, C. (2022). Programming in early childhood education: A systematic review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 32, 100396.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mayer, R.E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 13(1), 121–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y.B.-D., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 125–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. McKinley, K. S. (2018). What happens to us does not happen to most of you. Retrieved from https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-to-most-of-you/
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Mitcho, S.R. (2016). Feminist pedagogy. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Morrison, B.B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Navarro, D. (2013). Learning statistics with R. Lulu.com. Retrieved from http://compcogscisydney.org/learning-statistics-with-r
     [Google Scholar]
  63. O’Dea, R.E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M.D., & Nakagawa, S. (2018). Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for stem. Nature communications, 9(1), 3777.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Okun, T. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/
  65. O’Mara, M. (2022). Why can’t tech fix its gender problem? Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/11/1056917/tech-fix-gender-problem/
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Phillips-Jones, L. (2003). Skills for successful mentoring: Competencies of outstandingmentors and mentees. CCC/The Mentoring Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Pozo, B., & Padilla, C. (2019). Criptogıń ia: Una paraula nova per a un fenomen antic. eldiario. es, 5, 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Pozo-Sánchez, B., & Padilla-Carmona, C. (2021). Criptoginia: Una palabra nueva, un concepto para investigar. Quaderns de Filologia-Estudis Lingüístics, 26, 175–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. QANU. (2020). Report on the bachelor’s and the master’s programmes artificial intelligence of Radboud University. Retrieved from https://publicaties.nvao.net/ACCR_009468_21PM-56945_Artificial_Intelligence_Rapport_2020.pdf
  70. Raytheon. (1969). Apollo 11 Press Kit Raytheon. Retrieved from https://www.apollopresskits.com/apollopresskit-directory
  71. Rosner, D.K., Shorey, S., Craft, B.R., & Remick, H. (2018). Making core memory: Design inquiry into gendered legacies of engineering and craftwork. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Rossiter, M.W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social studies of science, 23(2), 325–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Salter, A., & Blodgett, B. (2017). Toxic geek masculinity in media: Sexism, trolling, and identity policing. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Scheerens, J., Timmermans, A., & Van der Werf, G. (2019). Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes in the Netherlands. In Volante, L., Schnepfe, S., Jerrim, J., & Klinger, D. (Eds.), Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes: Cross-national trends, policies, and practices (pp. 111–132). Singapore: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Scott, S. (2019). Fake geek girls. New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Sheard, J., Simon, J., Dermoudy, J., D’Souza, D., Hu, M., & Parsons, D. (2014). Benchmarking a set of exam questions for introductory programming. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2014), Auckland, New Zealand.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Shore, J. (1985). The sachertorte algorithm and other antidotes to computer anxiety (Vol.17). New York: ACM New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Shrewsbury, C.M. (1987). What is feminist pedagogy?Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15(3/4), 6–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Swidan, A., & Hermans, F. (2023). A framework for the localization of programming languages. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Terrell, J., Kofink, A., Middleton, J., Rainear, C., Murphy-Hill, E., Parnin, C., & Stallings, J. (2016). Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Computer Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. The British Psychological Society. (2017). Supplementary guidance for research and research methods on Society accredited undergraduate and conversion programmes. Retrieved from https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/202207/Research%20Methods%20-%20Undergraduate%20Programmes%20WEB.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Tupas, R., & Tarrayo, V.N. (2024). The violence of literature review and the imperative to ask new questions. Applied Linguistics Review, (0).
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Turkle, S. (2005). The second self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Van der Meulen, A., Hartendorp, M., Voorn, W., & Hermans, F. (2023). Observing the computational concept of abstraction in blind and low vision learners using the bee-bot and blue-bot. Computer Science Education, 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Van der Werf, V., Aivaloglou, E., Hermans, F., & Specht, M. (2022). (how) should variables and their naming be taught in novice programming education? Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume2, 53–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Voyer, D., & Voyer, S.D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), 1174.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Agreed, but I am not sure that combining these in a single course is wise, and I worry about students without coding experience feeling that they start with a handicap (because they do). In their first stats course, I like students to grasp the concepts, not “tapply”. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/EJWagenmakers/status/1066680953534328832
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Webb, L.M., Allen, M.W., & Walker, K.L. (2002). Feminist pedagogy: Identifying basic principles. Academic Exchange, 6(1), 67–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. White, S.K. (2020). Women in tech statistics: The hard truths of an uphill battle. CIO online.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Wing, J.M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Yates, J., & Plagnol, A.C. (2022). Female computer science students: A qualitative exploration of women’s experiences studying computer science at university in the UK. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3079–3105.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES
Loading
Teaching coding inclusively
TvGend 27, 196 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES
/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES
/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.007.GUES
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): inclusivity; pedagogy; programming

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error