skip to main content
other
Public Access

Upward mobility for underrepresented students: a model for a cohort-based bachelor's degree in computer science

Published:27 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

CSin3 is a cohort-based, three-year computer science bachelor's degree program that has increased graduation rates of traditionally underrepresented computer science students. A collaborative effort between a community college and a public university, CSin3 provides a clear pathway for upward socio-economic mobility into the high-paying technology industry. CSin3 students are 90% from traditionally underrepresented groups, 80% first-generation, 32% female, and have a three-year graduation rate of 71%, compared to a 22% four-year graduation rate for traditional computer science students. Upon graduation, CSin3 students score similarly on a standardized exam of computer science knowledge as compared to traditional students who graduate in 4 years or more. The first graduates had a job placement rate of 78% within two months of graduation, including positions at large technology companies like Apple, Salesforce, and Uber. By implementing a cohort-based learning community, a pre-defined course pathway, just-in-time academic and administrative support, comprehensive financial aid, and a focus on 21st century skills, the CSin3 program has demonstrated promising results in addressing the capacity, cost, quality, and diversity challenges present in the technology industry.

References

  1. 2017. Khan Academy Math. (2017). https://www.khanacademy.org/#mathGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. The ETS® Major Field Test Computer Science: Item Information Report Technical Report. Education Testing Services.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Susan P. Ackermann. 1991. The Benefits of Summer Bridge Programs for Underrepresented and Low-Income Transfer Students. Community Junior College Research Quarterly of Research and Practice 15, 2 (1991), 211--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. 2008. Learning to Reason and Communicate in College: Initial Report of Findings from the CLA Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research Council (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Monterey County Agricultural Commission. 2016. 2016 Monterey County Crop Report. (2016). http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=27601Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Harris Cooper, Barbara Nye, Kelly Charlton, James Lindsay, and Scott Greathouse 1996. The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta-Analytic Review. Review of Educational Research 66, 3 (1996), 227--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Angela Lee Duckworth. 2013. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. (2013). https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_grit_the_power_of_passion_and_perseveranceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Carol S Dweck. 2008. Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement. Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. ACE Center for Policy Analysis. 2006. Working their Way Through College: Student Employment and its Impact on the College Experience. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Suzanne K Hayes. 2010. Student Employment and the Economic Cost of Delayed College Graduation. Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012) 6, 1 (2010), 129--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Trudy Howles. 2005. Community and Accountability in a First Year Programming Sequence. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (June 2005), 99--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel J Hurley and Thomas L Harnisch. 2012. The Three-Year Bachelor's Degree: Reform Measure or Red Herring? American Association of State Colleges and Universities (September 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis Jenkins and John Fink. 2016. Tracking Transfer: New Measures of Institutional and State Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students Attain Bachelor's Degrees. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Louise Ann Lyon and Jill Denner. 2016. Student Perspectives of Community College Pathways to Computer Science Bachelor's Degrees. (2016). https://goo.gl/Q0wJJvGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jane Margolis, Rachel Estrella, Joanna Goode, Jennifer Jellison Holme, and Kim Nao. 2010. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. American Association of Community Colleges. 2016. Fast facts. (2016). http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/FastfactsR2.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. National Survey of Student Engagement. 2017. Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education-Annual Results 2017. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE Computer Society. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. University of Washington Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. 2008. Pathways in Computer Science. (2008). https://youtu.be/jq_EcstLlfEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Barbara Rogoff. 1994. Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1, 4 (1994), 209--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Fink Shanna Smith Jaggars and Jeffrey Fletcher. 2016. A Longitudinal Analysis of Community College Pathways to Computer Science Bachelor's Degrees. (2016). http://goo.gl/Eiz33GGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lydia T. Tien, Vicki Roth, and J.A. Kampmeier. 2002. Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Approach in an Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39, 7 (2002), 606--632.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Joke Voogt and Natalie Pareja Roblin. 2012. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44, 3 (2012), 299--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jennifer Wine, Natasha Janson, and Sara Wheeless. 2011. 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study. National Center for Education Statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Robert Zemsky. 2009. Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming American Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Upward mobility for underrepresented students: a model for a cohort-based bachelor's degree in computer science
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Inroads
      ACM Inroads  Volume 9, Issue 2
      June 2018
      75 pages
      ISSN:2153-2184
      EISSN:2153-2192
      DOI:10.1145/3211407
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2018

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • other
      • Popular
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format