This monograph includes nine papers delivered at a National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) preconference workshop, and a previously unpublished paper on gender and attitudes. The papers, which are presented in four categories, are: (1) "Report on the Workshop: In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education" (C. Dianne Martin); (2) "Understanding Gender Biases in Computer-Related Behavior: Are We Using the Wrong Metaphor?" (Robin Kay); (3) "Gender Differences in Human Computer Interaction" (Charles W. Huff, John H. Fleming, and Joel Cooper); (4) "Gender and Attitude Toward Computers" (James R. Aman); (5) "Female Students' Underachievement in Computer Science and Mathematics: Reasons and Recommendations" (Lesley S. Klein); (6) "Implications of the Computer Culture for Women of Color" (Carol Edwards); (7) "Strategies for Involving Girls in Computer Science" (Valerie Clark); (8) "A New Introduction to Computer Science" (Danielle R. Bernstein); (9) "Restructuring Departments for Equality" (Henry Etzkowitz, Carol Kemelgor, Michael Neuschatz, and Brian Uzzi); and (10) "Gender Equity--A Partial List of Resources" (Cindy Meyer Hanchey). An additional paper and report are appended: "Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices within the Computer Culture" (Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert); and "Becoming a Computer Scientist: A Report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Science" (Amy Pearl, Martha Pollack, Eve Riskin, Becky Thomas, Elizabeth Wolf, and Alice Wu). The gender equity resources listed include books, articles, and brochures; training modules; technical assistance modules; publications from the National Science Foundation; and organizations. (ALF)

Understanding and overcoming the gender gap in computer science education. The information technology revolution is transforming almost every aspect of society, but girls and women are largely out of the loop. Although women surf the Web in equal numbers to men and make a majority of online purchases, few are involved in the design and creation of new technology. It is mostly men whose perspectives and priorities inform the development of computing innovations and who reap the lion's share of the financial rewards. As only a small fraction of high school and college computer science students are female, the field is likely to remain a "male clubhouse," absent major changes. In Unlocking the Clubhouse, social scientist Jane Margolis and computer scientist and educator Allan Fisher examine the many influences contributing to the gender gap in computing. The book is based on interviews with more than 100 computer science students of both sexes from Carnegie Mellon University, a major center of computer science research, over a period of four years, as well as classroom observations and conversations with hundreds of college and high school faculty. The interviews capture the dynamic details of the female computing experience, from the family computer kept in a brother's bedroom to women's feelings of alienation in college computing classes. The authors investigate the familial, educational, and institutional origins of the computing gender gap. They also describe educational reforms that have made a dramatic difference at Carnegie Mellon—where the percentage of women entering the School of Computer Science rose from 7% in 1995 to 42% in 2000—and at high schools around the country.

Despite many years of equality of choice, boys and girls continue to differ in both the subjects they study at school and later in the careers they decide to pursue. In this collection of papers by leading researchers from academic and practitioner backgrounds, the current evidence from a range of fields is reviewed. Drawing on both their own original research and that of others, the contributors consider topics as diverse as subject choice in secondary school, differences in brain functions between the sexes, the comparison of men and women in management and recruiting women to science and technology.

This book presents some of the results from the second stage of lEA's study of Computers in Education (CompEd). lEA, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, conducts international comparative studies focussing on educational achievement, practices, and policies in various countries and education systems around the world. It has a Secretariat located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. lEA studies have reported on a wide range of topics, each contributing to a deeper understanding of educational processes. The CompEd study is a project that sheds light on the way computers have been introduced in education and on how they are being used across the world today. The study proceeded in two stages with data collected for stage 1 in 1989 and for stage 2 in 1992. Results from both stages have been published in a variety of publications. This book reports about a special part of the study. Student achievement and school processes come into being in the context of the structure and the policies of national (or regional) education systems. The variety found in the CompEd results led us to ask how much might be explained by differences in these national or regional contexts. That is the reason the CompEd study took the initiative to invite the countries participating in the study, as well as some other countries that have had interesting developments in the domain of educational computers, to write a chapter describing their policies and practices regarding computers in education.

Many claims are made about how certain tools, technologies, and practices improve software development. But which claims are verifiable, and which are merely wishful thinking? In this book, leading thinkers such as Steve McConnell, Barry Boehm, and Barbara Kitchenham offer essays that uncover the truth and unmask myths commonly held among the software development community. Their insights may surprise you. Are some programmers really ten times more productive than others? Does writing tests first help you develop better code faster? Can code metrics predict the number of bugs in a piece of software? Do design patterns actually make better software? What effect does personality have on pair programming? What matters more: how far apart people are geographically, or how far apart they are in the org chart? Contributors include: Jorge Aranda Tom Ball Victor R. Basili Andrew Begel Christian Bird Barry Boehm Marcelo Cataldo Steven Clarke Jason Cohen Robert DeLine Madeline Diep Hakan Erdogmus Michael Godfrey Mark Guzdial Jo E. Hannay Ahmed E. Hassan Israel Herraiz Kim Sebastian Herzig Cory Kapser Barbara Kitchenham Andrew Ko Lucas Layman Steve McConnell Tim Menzies Gail Murphy Nachi Nagappan Thomas J. Ostrand Dewayne Perry Marian Petre Lutz Prechelt Rahul Premraj Forrest Shull Beth Simon Diomidis Spinellis Neil Thomas Walter Tichy Burak Turhan Elaine J. Weyuker Michele A. Whitecraft Laurie Williams Wendy M. Williams Andreas Zeller Thomas Zimmermann