skip to main content

Title: Going Beyond the Platitudes of Equity: Developing a Shared Vision for Equity in Computer Science Education
Efforts to broaden participation in computing address how systemic school structures, educator preparation, and curriculum can provide inclusive learning spaces for all students. The emerging multiplicity of scholarship in computer science (CS) education forwards diverse voices, perspectives, and positionalities, and together, provide a rich set of evidence-based narratives that can transform K-12 policies and practices. The four projects featured in this panel bring together CS education efforts with varying methodologies focused on equity-oriented pedagogies and learning for all youth across the US. This panel will focus not only on sharing the multi-pronged efforts of the featured projects, but also on developing a shared vision among participants and panelists for what equity" can and should be in the future of both SIGCSE and CS education as we celebrate SIGCSE's 50th anniversary. By highlighting the work of projects rather than individuals in this panel, audience members will have the opportunity to learn about how collaborative efforts create and examine contexts for equity in CS education across diverse stakeholders, while also providing a richer base for constructing visions of equity that go beyond mere platitudes, toward action items for broadening participation in computing.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
SIGCSE '19 Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
657 to 658
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. While the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement has led to valuable advancements in equity-oriented curricula and teacher professional development, critical questions remain about how to build the capacity of school and district leadership to implement equitable CS education. How can administrators be supported in decision-making practices so that their school policies facilitaterather than hinder CS for All efforts? Our statewide research-practice partnership (RPP)—representing fourteen different urban, rural, and suburban local education agencies (LEAs) across the state—sought to tackle this question by collaboratively developing, implementing, and iteratively improving upon a guide and workshop for administrators seeking to bringmore »CS into their schools, as well as a multi-stakeholder PD for teachers, counselors, and principals. Both researcher and administrator panelists will share how we built an RPP, lessons learned in creating administrator resources, and details about effective multi-stakeholder PD. In line with SIGCSE’s 2021 call, this panel will inform audience members about how RPPs and a focus on leadership can expand computing education opportunities for more students in K-12 public schools.« less
  2. Who makes decisions about what K-12 computer science education(CSed) should look like? While equitable participation is a central focus of K-12 CSed, the field has largely thought about equity through the lens of providing access to inclusive and robust CS learning. But issues of who has a "seat at the table" in determining the shape of those experiences, and the larger field that structures them, have been largely under-explored. This panel session argues that equitable CSed must take into account questions of participation in decision-making about CSed, with such issues of power themselves a key dimension of equity in anymore »education effort. We highlight efforts engaging stakeholders from across the education landscape-parents, educators, community members, administrators, and students-exploring how decision-making is structured, how voices that are usually marginalized might be elevated, the tensions involved in these processes, and the relationships between participation and equity.« less
  3. Computer science (CS) has the potential to positively impact the economic well-being of those who pursue it, and the lives of those who benefit from its innovations. Yet, large CS learning opportunity gaps exist for students from historically underrepresented populations. The Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement has brought nationwide attention to these inequities in CS education. More recently, financial support for research-practice partnerships (RPPs) has increased to address these disparities because such collaborations can yield more relevant research for immediate educational/practical application. However, for initiatives to effectively engage in equity-focused initiatives toward making computing inclusive, partnership membersmore »need to begin with a shared definition of equity to which all are accountable. This poster takes a critical look at the development of a collaboratively developed definition of equity and its application in a CS for All RPP of university researchers and administrators from local education agencies across the state of California. Details are shared about how the RPP collectively defined equity and how that definition evolved and informed the larger project’s work with school administrators/educators.« less
  4. As efforts to broaden participation in computing and provide equitable computer science education to all students increase across the country, within states, and within cities and districts, this research aims to investigate whether existing efforts have increased equity. This research analyzes three years of computer science access, enrollment, and success data across the state of California to: (a) examine whether racial, gender, and socioeconomic equity in CS access, enrollment and success has improved; (b) identify persistent barriers to racial, gender and socioeconomic equity, and (c) inform statewide strategies to ensure equity in computer science across California. Findings indicate despite severalmore »promising trends, including an increase in CS access and participation across California, racial, gender and SES gaps remain in access to CS courses, participation, and success. Additional statewide policies and practices are needed to ensure equity in CS across California.« less
  5. In 2016, 10 universities launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) aimed at increasing the number of scholars from Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) populations entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty careers. NICs bring together stakeholders focused on a common goal to accelerate innovation through structured, ongoing intervention development, implementation, and refinement. We theorized a NIC organizational structure would aid understandings of a complex problem in different contexts and accelerate opportunities to develop and improve interventions to address the problem. A distinctive feature of this NIC is its diverse institutional composition of public and private, predominantlymore »white institutions, a historically Black university, a Hispanic-serving institution, and land grant institutions located across eight states and Washington, DC, United States. NIC members hold different positions within their institutions and have access to varied levers of change. Among the many lessons learned through this community case study, analyzing and addressing failed strategies is as equally important to a healthy NIC as is sharing learning from successful interventions. We initially relied on pre-existing relationships and assumptions about how we would work together, rather than making explicit how the NIC would develop, establish norms, understand common processes, and manage changing relationships. We had varied understandings of the depth of campus differences, sometimes resulting in frustrations about the disparate progress on goals. NIC structures require significant engagement with the group, often more intensive than traditional multi-institution organizational structures. They require time to develop and ongoing maintenance in order to advance the work. We continue to reevaluate our model for leadership, climate, diversity, conflict resolution, engagement, decision-making, roles, and data, leading to increased investment in the success of all NIC institutions. Our NIC has evolved from the traditional NIC model to become the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) AGEP NIC model with five key characteristics: (1) A well-specified aim, (2) An understanding of systems, including a variety of contexts and different organizations, (3) A culture and practice of shared leadership and inclusivity, (4) The use of data reflecting different institutional contexts, and (5) The ability to accelerate infrastructure and interventions. We conclude with recommendations for those considering developing a NIC to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.« less