pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07638 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.HC

From Uncertainty to Possibility: Early Computing Experiences for Rural Girls

Poornima Meegammana , Niranjan Meegammana , Chathurika Jayalath , Chethya Munasinghe , Kunal Gupta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords computing educationrural girlsprogramming self-efficacyblock-based programminggender equitycareer aspirationslow-resource settingsmastery experiences
0
0 comments X

The pith

A locally grounded curriculum raises programming self-efficacy and technology career interest for rural adolescent girls.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that a curriculum designed for rural contexts, beginning with digital foundations and unplugged problem-solving before advancing to block-based programming, produces measurable gains in girls' confidence to code and shifts their career goals toward technology fields. This matters in settings where access barriers, language issues, and gender norms limit participation, and where most existing evidence comes from better-resourced urban areas. Pre- and post-program surveys documented reliable increases in self-efficacy, while qualitative accounts highlight mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and personal project creation as the active ingredients. If these patterns hold, they offer concrete design priorities for building scalable programs that make computing feel attainable in low-resource communities.

Core claim

The authors delivered a curriculum that started with digital foundations and unplugged problem-solving, progressed to block-based programming, and included parent awareness sessions plus teacher training in gender-responsive practices. Pre and post surveys showed reliable increases in programming self-efficacy, with career aspirations shifting toward technology. Qualitative data indicated that mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and the creation of personal projects served as the primary drivers of those gains, pointing to priorities for locally relevant programs in low-resource communities.

What carries the argument

The curriculum progression from unplugged activities to block-based programming, supported by mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and personal project creation.

If this is right

  • Girls in rural low-resource settings can develop programming confidence through structured early experiences that start without computers.
  • Career aspirations in technology increase when programs emphasize personal projects and peer work.
  • Parent awareness sessions and teacher training in gender-responsive practices support participation and belonging.
  • Such curricula can be scaled in communities where computing has previously seemed inaccessible due to access and norm barriers.
  • Design should prioritize hands-on mastery moments over abstract instruction alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same drivers of confidence could be tested in other underrepresented groups or geographic regions to check whether the pattern generalizes beyond rural Sri Lanka.
  • Longer-term follow-up on participants might show whether early self-efficacy gains translate into later course enrollment or career choices in computing.
  • The approach connects to wider questions about how unplugged activities can lower entry barriers for digital literacy in schools with limited infrastructure.
  • Education planners could adapt the parent-teacher support elements when introducing computing into rural curricula elsewhere.

Load-bearing premise

The measured rises in self-efficacy and career interest result directly from the curriculum rather than from who was chosen to participate, general maturation over time, or outside events.

What would settle it

A matched group of rural girls who did not receive the curriculum but showed similar gains in self-efficacy and tech interest on the same surveys would indicate the program is not the cause.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07638 by Chathurika Jayalath, Chethya Munasinghe, Kunal Gupta, Niranjan Meegammana, Poornima Meegammana.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Girls working together during an introductory programming session. Permission to use these images has been granted. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Curriculum pathway across Digital Foundations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Girls remain underrepresented in computing, and rural contexts often compound barriers of access, language, and gender norms. Prior work in computing education highlights that confidence and belonging can shape participation, yet most evidence comes from well-resourced, English-dominant settings. Less is known about how locally grounded pathways can build programming self-efficacy and broaden career interest for adolescent girls. We addressed this gap by delivering a curriculum that began with digital foundations and unplugged problem-solving, then progressed to block-based programming activities, supported by parent awareness and teacher training in gender-responsive practices. Pre and post-surveys showed a reliable increase in programming self-efficacy, and career aspirations shifted toward technology. Complementary qualitative data indicate that mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and the creation of personal projects were key drivers of confidence, suggesting design priorities for scalable, locally relevant programmes in low-resource communities that can shift perceptions of who belongs in computing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a curriculum intervention for rural adolescent girls that starts with digital foundations and unplugged problem-solving, advances to block-based programming, and includes parent awareness sessions plus teacher training in gender-responsive practices. Pre- and post-surveys are reported to show a reliable increase in programming self-efficacy with career aspirations shifting toward technology; qualitative data identify mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and personal projects as key drivers of confidence.

Significance. If the reported gains prove robust, the work would usefully extend computing-education research into rural, low-resource, non-English-dominant settings and supply concrete design priorities for programs that aim to broaden participation and belonging.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and (presumed) Results section: the claim of a 'reliable increase' in self-efficacy is presented without any reported sample size, statistical test, p-value, effect size, or confidence interval, preventing evaluation of whether the observed change exceeds what would be expected from measurement error or chance.
  2. [Methods / Results] Methods and Results: the single-arm pre-post design contains no control or comparison group and no statistical adjustment for maturation, testing effects, or selection bias. Because the central claim attributes the measured shifts to the curriculum, this design choice is load-bearing and requires either a control condition or explicit discussion of why alternative explanations can be ruled out.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that surveys 'showed a reliable increase' but supplies no numerical values or qualitative descriptors of the magnitude of change; adding these would improve transparency.
  2. [Results] Qualitative themes are described as 'key drivers' without indicating how many participants contributed to each theme or whether saturation was assessed; a brief statement on analytic rigor would strengthen the qualitative component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the referee's constructive comments, which highlight important areas for improving the transparency and rigor of our reporting. We address each major point below and describe the revisions we will undertake.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and (presumed) Results section: the claim of a 'reliable increase' in self-efficacy is presented without any reported sample size, statistical test, p-value, effect size, or confidence interval, preventing evaluation of whether the observed change exceeds what would be expected from measurement error or chance.

    Authors: We agree that the current draft does not provide sufficient statistical detail to substantiate the claim. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract and expand the Results section to report the sample size of participants completing both surveys, the specific statistical test used to evaluate change in self-efficacy scores, the resulting p-value, effect size, and confidence interval. These additions will enable readers to assess whether the increase exceeds what might be attributable to measurement error or chance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Results] Methods and Results: the single-arm pre-post design contains no control or comparison group and no statistical adjustment for maturation, testing effects, or selection bias. Because the central claim attributes the measured shifts to the curriculum, this design choice is load-bearing and requires either a control condition or explicit discussion of why alternative explanations can be ruled out.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the single-arm pre-post design limits strong causal claims and leaves open alternative explanations such as maturation or testing effects. Because the intervention has already been delivered, a control condition cannot be added at this stage. We will therefore revise the Methods and Discussion sections to include an explicit limitations subsection that (a) describes the practical and ethical constraints on randomization in this rural school setting, (b) notes the lack of statistical adjustment for confounds, and (c) explains how the timing of the intervention together with the qualitative data (participants linking gains to specific program components) support our interpretation that the curriculum was a primary driver. This will make the design assumptions and their implications transparent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical pre-post study with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from pre- and post-surveys plus qualitative data on a computing curriculum intervention. No equations, models, predictions, or first-principles derivations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. Claims rest on observed changes in self-efficacy scores and thematic analysis of interviews, without any fitted parameters renamed as predictions or self-citation chains invoked to justify uniqueness or ansatzes. While the single-arm design limits causal strength, this is an evidentiary limitation rather than circularity; the derivation chain is empty and the results are self-contained as descriptive empirical findings.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that survey instruments validly measure self-efficacy changes and that qualitative accounts accurately identify causal drivers without external confounds.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Pre- and post-intervention surveys accurately capture changes in programming self-efficacy and career aspirations.
    The reported increases rest on the validity and reliability of these self-report measures.
  • domain assumption Qualitative data reliably identifies mastery experiences, peer collaboration, and personal projects as the key drivers of increased confidence.
    Interpretation of what caused the observed shifts relies on this reading of the qualitative evidence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1292 out tokens · 64164 ms · 2026-05-10T16:59:33.337545+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ijtihadi Kamilia Amalina, Tibor Vidákovich, and Könül Karimova. 2025. Factors influencing student interest in STEM careers: motivational, cognitive, and socioeconomic status.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12, 1 (2025), 1–15

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Nihan Arslan Namli and Birsel Aybek. 2022. An Investigation of the Effect of Block-Based Programming and Unplugged Coding Activities on Fifth Graders’ Computational Thinking Skills, Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance. Contemporary Educational Technology14, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    1997.Self-efficacy: the exercise of control

    Albert Bandura. 1997.Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman, New York

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Karen A Blotnicky, Tamara Franz-Odendaal, Frederick French, and Phillip Joy

    work page

  5. [5]

    A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students.International journal of STEM education5, 1 (2018), 22

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Jackie Campbell. 2025. Missing women: Using a Bourdieusian approach to explore the lack of female representation in the technology industry.First Monday(2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Ana Paula Centeno, Corina Hernandez, and Kalrav Pandit. 2025. Our Journey Towards a Diverse Computing Program: What Worked, Where we Are, and What we have Learned. InProceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 206–212

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A Ziegler, Amanda K Montoya, and Lily Jiang. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological bulletin 143, 1 (2017), 1

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Christina Convertino. 2020. Nuancing the discourse of underrepresentation: a feminist post-structural analysis of gender inequality in computer science education in the US.Gender and education32, 5 (2020), 594–607

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    2015.Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing.ERIC

    Christianne Corbett and Catherine Hill. 2015.Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing.ERIC

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Sayamindu Dasgupta and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2017. Learning to Code in Localized Programming Languages.Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale(Apr 2017). doi:10.1145/3051457.3051464

    work page doi:10.1145/3051457.3051464 2017

  12. [12]

    Shilpa Sayura Foundation. 2009. Shilpa Sayura Foundation : 21st Century Youth Development. https://shilpasayura.org/

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Shilpa Sayura Foundation. 2016. Ganidu. https://learn.shilpa64.lk/apps/ganidu/ index.html

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Eitan Frachtenberg and Rhody D Kaner. 2022. Underrepresentation of women in computer systems research.Plos one17, 4 (2022), e0266439

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Neil Fraser. 2014. Google blockly-a visual programming editor. https://developers. google.com/blockly

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Philip J. Guo. 2018. Non-Native English Speakers Learning Computer Programming: Barriers, Desires, and Design Opportunities.Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(2018). doi:10.1145/ 3173574.3173970

    work page arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Sarah Hand, Lindsay Rice, and Eric Greenlee. 2017. Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields.Social Psychology of Education20, 4 (2017), 929–945

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Kimberly Kelly, David A Dampier, and Kendra Carr. 2013. WILLING, ABLE, AND UNWANTED: HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS’POTENTIAL SELVES IN COMPUTING. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering19, 1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    A. L. Kleppang, A. M. Steigen, and H. Finbråten. 2023. Explaining variance in self-efficacy among adolescents: the association between mastery experiences, social support, and self-efficacy.BMC Public Health23 (2023). doi:10.1186/s12889- 023-16603-w

    work page doi:10.1186/s12889- 2023

  20. [20]

    Robert W Lent, Steven D Brown, and Gail Hackett. 1994. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior45, 1 (1994), 79–122

    work page 1994

  21. [21]

    Min Liu, Ying Cai, Song-Ae Han, and Peixia Shao. 2023. Understanding Middle School Students’ Self-Efficacy and Performance in a Technology-Enriched Problem-Based Learning Program: A Learning Analytics Approach.Journal of Educational Technology Systems51 (2023), 513 – 543. doi:10.1177/ 00472395231174034

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Tian Luo, Winnie Wing Mui So, Zhi Hong Wan, and Wai Chin Li. 2021. STEM stereotypes predict students’ STEM career interest via self-efficacy and outcome expectations.International Journal of STEM Education8, 1 (2021), 36

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Joyce B Main and Corey Schimpf. 2017. The underrepresentation of women in computing fields: A synthesis of literature using a life course perspective.IEEE Transactions on Education60, 4 (2017), 296–304

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Poornima Meegammana, Hussel Suriyaarachchi, Paul Denny, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2025. Broadening Participation through Physical Computing: Replicating Sensor-Based Programming Workshops for Rural Students in Sri Lanka(ITiCSE 2025). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 242–248. doi:10.1145/3724363.3729037

    work page doi:10.1145/3724363.3729037 2025

  25. [25]

    Andrés Monroy-Hernández and Mitchel Resnick. 2008. Empowering kids to create and share programmable media.Interactions15, 2 (March 2008), 50–53. doi:10.1145/1340961.1340974

    work page doi:10.1145/1340961.1340974 2008

  26. [26]

    Gwen Nugent, Bradley Barker, Greg Welch, Neal Grandgenett, ChaoRong Wu, and Carl Nelson. 2015. A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation.International Journal of Science Education37, 7 (2015), 1067–1088

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Arif Rachmatullah, Eric Wiebe, Danielle Boulden, Bradford Mott, Kristy Boyer, and James Lester. 2020. Development and validation of the Computer Science Attitudes Scale for middle school students (MG-CS attitudes).Computers in Human Behavior Reports2 (2020), 100018. doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100018 2020

  28. [28]

    Vennila Ramalingam, Deborah LaBelle, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2004. Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. InProceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 171–175

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    April H Reed, Mark G Angolia, Lyubov G Sluder, and Leslie R Pagliari. 2022. Using STEM Camps to Improve Female Interest in Technology Careers.Journal of Youth Development17, 3 (2022), 90–104

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: programming for all.Commun. ACM 52, 11 (Nov. 2009), 60–67. doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779

    work page doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779 2009

  31. [31]

    Christopher S Rozek, Janet S Hyde, Ryan C Svoboda, Chris S Hulleman, and Judith M Harackiewicz. 2015. Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology107, 1 (2015), 195

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Yanhong Shao and Shumin Kang. 2022. The association between peer relationship and learning engagement among adolescents: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy and academic resilience.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022). doi:10. 3389/fpsyg.2022.938756

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Hung-Bin Sheu and Jennifer J Bordon. 2017. SCCT research in the international context: Empirical evidence, future directions, and practical implications.Journal of Career Assessment25, 1 (2017), 58–74

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Robbert Smit, Rahel Schmid, and Nicolas Robin. 2025. Experiencing enjoyment in visual programming tasks promotes self-efficacy and reduces the gender gap. British Journal of Educational Technology56, 3 (2025), 1231–1247

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Nancy L Staus, Kari O’Connell, and Martin Storksdieck. 2021. Addressing the ceiling effect when assessing STEM out-of-school time experiences. InFrontiers in education, Vol. 6. Frontiers Media SA, 690431

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Una Tellhed, Fredrik Björklund, and Kalle Kallio Strand. 2022. Sure I can code (but do I want to?). Why boys’ and girls’ programming beliefs differ and the effects of mandatory programming education.Computers in Human Behavior 135 (2022), 107370

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Sherri L Turner, Ju Ri Joeng, Marcuetta D Sims, Shari N Dade, and Monica Froman Reid. 2019. SES, gender, and STEM career interests, goals, and actions: A test of SCCT.Journal of Career Assessment27, 1 (2019), 134–150

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Mark Warschauer, Michele Knobel, and Leeann Stone. 2004. Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide.Educational policy18, 4 (2004), 562–588

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    Susan Wiedenbeck, Deborah Labelle, and Vennila NR Kain. 2004. Factors affecting course outcomes in introductory programming.. InPPIG. 11

    work page 2004