As computing disciplines grow, researchers increasingly examine factors that influence students’ engagement, persistence, and sense of belonging. One such factor is computing identity (CI), which refers to the extent to which students perceive themselves as “computing people” (Dempsey et al., 2015). CI is shaped by the interpretation of competence, performance, recognition, and belonging within the discipline (Taheri et al., 2018). CI is an evolving construct shaped by social and ecological contexts (Rodriguez et al., 2020). Understanding CI is, therefore, central to supporting equity and persistence in undergraduate (UG) computing. As the field evolves, it's important to examine how CI frameworks have changed in response to new disciplinary, social, and structural realities. This study addresses that need by reviewing how CI has been conceptualized in UG computing education research (CER).
Several recent reviews have examined identity-focused research in computing education with different emphasis. Kapoor and Gardner-McCune (2022) conducted the first systematic review of UG CER, using broad inclusion criteria (e.g., CI, Computer Science (CS) identity, professional identity) and categorizing studies by semantics and contribution. Große-Bölting et al. (2023) synthesized identity research across higher education, focusing on how identity theories are applied in CS education. Santhosh et al. (2024) narrowed to CI, cataloging definitions and subconstructs. Although these reviews note conceptual drift, none trace how CI conceptualizations shift over time in UG CER.
The following research questions guide the review:
RQ1. How has the conceptualization of computing identity evolved in undergraduate computing education research over time?
RQ2. How has undergraduate computing education research incorporated shifts in the computing identity framework, and what trends or gaps emerge from this evolution?
A systematic search was conducted across six databases: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and DBLP using PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The Boolean query targeted UG populations and identity-related terminology. The search was limited to studies published in English until 2024. The search yielded 2,062 records, including 21 identified through snowball sampling (Wohlin, 2014). 82 studies underwent full-text review. Inclusion criteria required explicit use of CI or CS identity in UG contexts. Exclusion criteria excluded K–12 studies, STEM identity, professional identity, and non-peer-reviewed sources. Twenty studies met the criteria, including three systematic reviews for contextual data.
The review employed Directed Qualitative Content Analysis (DQCA) (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Several established identity frameworks (Hazari et al., 2010; Mahadeo et al., 2020) provided deductive codes like competence, performance, interest, recognition, and belonging. Inductive codes, such as intersectionality, community cultural wealth (CCW), and ecological context, emerged. Coding was done manually, and analytic memos were documented.
The analysis revealed eight themes (Table 1). CI moved from skill-based definitions to broader understandings of self. Early work conceptualizes CI through technical mastery, role-based values, or simple self-identification (Boyer et al., 2010; Dempsey et al., 2015; Mahadeo et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2024). Later studies frame CI as a negotiated, developmental process shaped by participation, expectations, and becoming a future professional (Kinnunen et al., 2018; Lunn et al., 2021; Rodriguez & Lehman, 2017). More recent work foregrounds structural forces and institutional culture, embedding identity within ecological and intersectional contexts that include CCW (Ramirez et al., 2024; Rodriguez et al., 2020; Rodriguez & Stevens, 2023). Quantitative research on aspirations reveals that institutional conditions influence CI (Wofford et al., 2022). Together, these studies move CI's focus from “competence and interest” to a dynamic process of “becoming a computing person”.
Table 1
Key Themes
Research Question | Theme | Description |
Evolution of the conceptualization | Skill to Selfhood | Technical mastery to broader conceptualizations |
Negotiated Self | Identity as a dynamic, constructed, negotiated | |
Making Power Visible | Critical intersectional frameworks | |
Integration in Research Practice | Measurement Momentum | Quantitative models dominate |
Integration of Intersectionality | Equity referenced, low application | |
Interventions as Identity Work | Mentoring/CoP | |
Cross-Cutting | Conceptual Drift and Continuity | Core constructs persist, gain social depth |
Frameworks to Praxis | Informing equity-oriented design |
Despite this theoretical expansion, research practice remains dominated by quantitative operationalizations of CI that focus on competence/performance, interest, recognition, and belonging (Lunn et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2024). Streamlined self-recognition measures reinforce narrow models of identity (Shah et al., 2023). Although equity is frequently referenced, intersectional or critical analyses appear in only a subset of studies (Rodriguez et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2024), while others examine gender or underserved groups without engaging critical frameworks (DuBow et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2018; Lunn et al., 2021). Interventions such as mentoring and CoP treat CI as intentionally supported through recognition and belonging (Boyer et al., 2010; Kargarmoakhar et al., 2024; Rosales et al., 2024), but few explicitly implement them. Across studies, core constructs of competence, interest, and recognition remain stable anchors. Newer work adds social and structural depth through ecological, intersectional, and culturally grounded interpretations (Ramirez et al., 2024; Rodriguez et al., 2020; Rodriguez & Stevens, 2023). Increasingly, CI frameworks move from analytic tools to design frameworks for equity-oriented practice, informing interventions that center on belonging, recognition, and students’ cultural assets.
Theoretical evolution of CI reflects a shift from psychological models to sociocultural understandings of identity. Ecological and intersectional models demonstrate that systemic forces shape CI development, and underrepresented groups must navigate both internal beliefs and external validation to “become” computing people. Methodological patterns mirror these tensions. Quantitative identity models offer comparability and predictive power for outcomes such as persistence or career intention, but these models often flatten context and assume homogeneity within demographic groups. Critical, qualitative, and reflexive approaches reveal identity as a dynamic process shaped by culture, community, and structural conditions, and the field benefits from mixed-methods and multi-perspective analysis. Practical interventions such as mentoring, near-peer programs, and CoP cultivate recognition, belonging, and confidence. Social dimensions of computing provide supportive structures for CI development. Embedding critical reflection, representation, and culturally grounded practices within curricula strengthens students’ sense of fit and agency. Treating identity frameworks as living design tools reframes equity work as the creation of environments that actively nurture diverse computing identities.
CI has shifted from a narrow focus on skills to a dynamic, situated process shaped by recognition, context, and structural power. As computing permeates more domains of life, identities are increasingly formed and negotiated within classrooms, labs, and workplaces. Supporting diverse UG students requires treating CI as lived and changeable, and designing environments that foster belonging, recognition, and agency.
EdTech Archives