Emma Hogan Benser

Office #202

Reem-Kayden Center for Science and Computation

Bard College

I am an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Bard College. My research focuses on improving computer science education in prisons. I started this work as a Ph.D. student at University of California, San Diego, where I was advised by Leo Porter, Bill Griswold, and Gerald Soosai Raj, all in the Computing Education lab. I finished my Ph.D. in June 2025 (dissertation here).

My research has involved teaching computer science courses in college-in-prison programs, and conducting research on the effectiveness of strategies used to adapt to the limitations and affordances of the prison environment. A large part of my research is understanding incarcerated students’ experiences in CS courses, and learning from them about how to help them succeed. Therefore, I specialize in qualitative research methods and ground my work in asset-based frameworks of education for diverse learners (i.e., Culturally Relevant Education, computing in context, andragogy).

As a member of the Computing Education lab at UC San Diego, I worked on other innovations in computing education such as Live Coding, understanding the experiences of non-majors, and incorporating culturally relevant techniques in CS. In the future, I plan to continue teaching and researching computer science education in prisons at the college-level.

news

Jun 15, 2025	Finished my Ph.D.
Sep 26, 2023	Work featured in UC San Diego newsletter
Mar 01, 2023	Awarded Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship

latest posts

Apr 14, 2025	NCHEP 14 National Conference on Higher Education in Prison
Jan 26, 2024	UCSD CSE Research Open House

selected publications

CS0 vs. CS1:: Understanding Fears and Confidence amongst Non-majors in Introductory CS Courses

Emma Hogan , Ruoxuan Li , and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj

In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 , Mar 2023

Abs HTML PDF

Previous research has been devoted to improving the experience of non-majors in introductory CS courses. In this study, we compare the experiences of non-majors in two different introductory CS courses, specifically with respect to fears about taking the course and change in confidence levels. CS0 is a computing course intentionally designed for non-majors, and CS1 is a more traditional introductory computing course. Both of these courses were composed primarily of non-majors and were taught by the same instructor. Survey data was collected from 124 students enrolled in CS0, and 502 students enrolled in CS1. Through qualitative analysis, we found that the fears of non-major students entering both of these introductory CS courses fell into one or more of nine distinct categories (e.g., Coding, Perceiving STEM as Difficult, Managing Workload). Additionally, using students’ confidence levels at the beginning and end of the courses, we found that students in CS0 had a greater increase in confidence level than those in CS1. Finally, we explored connections between students’ fears and how their confidence changed by the end of the course. We found that students across both courses with fears related to coding, lack of preparation, and being left behind had the highest average increase in confidence levels.
The Role of Technology in Supporting the Learning Needs of All Levels of Incarcerated Students: A Supplement, not a Replacement

Emma Hogan

Mar 2021

Abs HTML

This research contributes to answering this question of how to improve correctional education by defining the role of technology in its ideal implementation, in order to maximize the impact of education for as many incarcerated learners as possible. In Part I, I detail the survey conducted in Albany County Jail to support this research with the primary source of perspectives from currently incarcerated learners. From that point forward, first-hand accounts from these individuals are spread throughout the paper (indicated with italics and block quotes at the beginnings of sections to which they apply) in order to situate all of the points I make within the context of the lives this work intends to serve. Part II focuses on current policy related to correctional education, grounding my arguments in the reality of what the law does and does not require and how this dictates the current state of education in prisons and jails. In Part III, I identify the specific learning needs of the incarcerated population. Part IV assesses how the current state of correctional education fails to meet these needs, and particularly the limitations of technology in its current implementation. My research culminates in Part V with recommendations on the role technology should have in the future of correctional education.