Engaging in Computer Science
This article delves into the strategies and benefits of utilizing Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for seamless communication between teachers and students in higher education institutions, enhancing the learning experience and fostering a more interactive educational environment.
Methods and Context
During the summers of 2018 and 2019, three free summer camps were offered for pre-collegiate students in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. These camps provided an introduction to computer science with a particular focus on cybersecurity. Topics were presented to student participants through real-world applications, cross-disciplinary approaches, and hands-on activities. All of the camps were led by by experts in computer science, cybersecurity, and education as well as collegiate camp staff. These camp staff members were undergraduates majoring in computer science and graduate students with expertise in computer science and cybersecurity.
Methods
The authors of this article utilized field notes (qualitative methodology) and surveys (quantitative methodology) for the three summer camps. After the first two summer camps in 2018, the authors used the field notes to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each and improvements were made for the third summer camp in 2019. One of the most relevant assessment changes for 2019 was the creation of a new 10 question pre/post survey which the team utilized in conjunction with demographic survey data to answer the research questions presented earlier. Furthermore, the 10 question survey instrument captured a high-level assessment of students' cybersecurity interests, practices, and knowledge. Beyond gauging baseline interest in the field, the survey asked students to identify important cybersecurity concepts, addressed security and privacy practices through real-world scenarios, and tested for specific content knowledge, all in a series of multi-select and ordering questions. Thus, in 2019, two student surveys (demographic and 10 question content/interest) and field notes (taken by the article's authors) were the main data collection methods.
The demographic survey was completed by the middle and high school students' parents during the initial registration process, while the 10 question survey was completed by the student participants once before the week-long camp and again during the final hour of the week-long camp. On the reverse side of the 2019 pre-camp survey (before camp activities began), the students wrote a question about computer science or cybersecurity. Throughout the camp, instructors touched on each of these questions/topics through conversations, real-world examples, and hands-on activities. At the end of the camp, the students were given the 2019 post-camp survey with the same content questions. On the back of the post-camp survey (end of the week), the students rated the outreach week experience from one to five (five being the best) and they wrote a comment explaining why they gave the camp that rating. There were a total of 24 paired surveys in which the students completed both the pre-camp survey and the post-camp survey.
Demographics and Context
The 2018 and 2019 summer camp demographics (n = 84), summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, show an average female to male gender breakdown of 27% to 73% and an average age of about 13 years old, with 49% of the students in grades 7 and 8 (ages 12–14). While the advertised age range for the camps was set at 13–18, several younger students (n = 7) ultimately participated as well. In addition, though the percentage of females participation in the camps does not reach parity with male participation, the percentage of female participation is 10% higher than the average U.S. computer science program.
Table 1. Gender breakdown of student camp participants.
| # Participants | # Females | # Males | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camp 1 | 23 | 5 | 18 |
| Camp 2 | 31 | 13 | 18 |
| Camp 3 | 30 | 5 | 25 |
| Total | 84 | 23 | 61 |
Table 2.
Grade and age breakdown of student camp participants.
| U.S. Grade Level | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age Range | 10–11 | 11–12 | 12–13 | 13–14 | 14–15 | 15–16 | 16–17 | 17–18 |
| Camp 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 |
| Camp 2 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Camp 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1 | 6 | 25 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 11 | 6 |
These camps utilized a set of best-known practices, grounded in literature, and activities for informal education tailored to participant demographics. These practices included the use of a structured and predictable schedule which featured hands-on unplugged activities in the morning and engaged inquiry and computer-based programming lab activities in the afternoon. The unplugged activities served to introduce basic computer science and cybersecurity concepts which scaffolded student knowledge in order for them to be successful during the hands-on programming of Micro:Bit devices. There were multiple opportunities for collaboration daily and throughout the week. For example, during the programming labs, student participants were grouped into smaller staff led/supported problem solving teams. As students worked towards solving real-world cybersecurity problems (through the application of computer science concepts in the programming of Micro:Bits), the camp staff supported the student teams in their problem solving activities by asking questions, providing advice, offering potential solutions, and sharing insight into potential security vulnerabilities of solutions.