More Like this

1. Defining and delivering “equity” in an RPP

   Hadad, R. ; Ryoo, J.J. ; Flapan, J. ; Kong, S. ( January 2021 , Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT))

   null (Ed.)

   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 members 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. 

   more » « less
2. Learning with Leadership: Perspectives from a Statewide Research-Practice Partnership Focused on Equity-Oriented Computing Professional Development for K-12 Administrators

   Ryoo, J.J. ; Flapan, J. ; Hadad, R. ; Margolis, J. ; Amalong, J. ; Aranguren, L. ; Campos, E. ; Knudson, J. ; Lee, M. ; Zuchowicz, M. ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education)

   null (Ed.)

   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 bring 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. 

   more » « less
3. Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education

   https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.33  

   Flapan, Julie ; Ryoo, Jean J. ; Hadad, Roxana ; Knudson, Joel ( January 2021 , Journal of Computer Science Integration)

   Background and Context: Most large-scale statewide initiatives of the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement have focused on the classroom level. Critical questions remain about building school and district leadership capacity to support teachers while implementing equitable computer science education that is scalable and sustainable.

   Objective: This statewide research-practice partnership, involving university researchers and school leaders from 14 local education agencies (LEA) from district and county offices, addresses the following research question: What do administrators identify as most helpful for understanding issues related to equitable computer science implementation when engaging with a guide and workshop we collaboratively developed to help leadership in such efforts?

   Method: Participant surveys, interviews, and workshop observations were analyzed to understand best practices for professional development supporting educational leaders.

   Findings: Administrators value computer science professional development resources that: (a) have a clear focus on “equity;” (b) engage with data and examples that deepen understandings of equity; (c) provide networking opportunities; (d) have explicit workshop purpose and activities; and (e) support deeper discussions of computer science implementation challenges through pairing a workshop and a guide.

   Implications: Utilizing Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) framework for equitable leadership practices, this study offers an actionable construct for equitable implementation of computer science including (a) how to build equity leadership and vision; (b) how to enact that vision; and (c) how to scale and sustain that vision. While this construct applies to equitable leadership practices more broadly across all disciplines, we found its application particularly useful when explicitly focused on equity leadership practices in computer science.

    

   more » « less
4. Continuous Improvement to Operationalize Equity in a Research-Practice- Partnership with Computer Science Education Leaders

   Hadad, R. ; Ryoo, J.J. ; Flapan, J. ; Knudson, J. ; Nazario, P. ( January 2023 , AERA)

   This study explores how a research-practice partnership’s (RPP) continuous improvement methods influenced equity leadership practices in computer science education for school administrators. District leaders and researchers analyzed and documented their continuous improvement process to define “equity and the iterative process of developing this shared definition. Findings reveal this process operationalized equity on two levels: 1) An external examination of equity in education and how racism and biases exacerbate access to computer science education, and 2) An internal gaze on the lack of diversity among our RPP. Key to each of these findings is the collective focus on an ever-changing definition of equity that encouraged our RPP to see our agency as school leaders in disrupting inequality and enacting change. 

   more » « less
5. ABET & Engineering Accreditation - History, Theory, Practice: Initial Findings from a National Study on the Governance of Engineering Education

   Akera, A. ( January 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   Who and by what means do we ensure that engineering education evolves to meet the ever changing needs of our society? This and other papers presented by our research team at this conference offer our initial set of findings from an NSF sponsored collaborative study on engineering education reform. Organized around the notion of higher education governance and the practice of educational reform, our open-ended study is based on conducting semi-structured interviews at over three dozen universities and engineering professional societies and organizations, along with a handful of scholars engaged in engineering education research. Organized as a multi-site, multi-scale study, our goal is to document differences in perspectives and interest the exist across organizational levels and institutions, and to describe the coordination that occurs (or fails to occur) in engineering education given the distributed structure of the engineering profession. This paper offers for all engineering educators and administrators a qualitative and retrospective analysis of ABET EC 2000 and its implementation. The paper opens with a historical background on the Engineers Council for Professional Development (ECPD) and engineering accreditation; the rise of quantitative standards during the 1950s as a result of the push to implement an engineering science curriculum appropriate to the Cold War era; EC 2000 and its call for greater emphasis on professional skill sets amidst concerns about US manufacturing productivity and national competitiveness; the development of outcomes assessment and its implementation; and the successive negotiations about assessment practice and the training of both of program evaluators and assessment coordinators for the degree programs undergoing evaluation. It was these negotiations and the evolving practice of assessment that resulted in the latest set of changes in ABET engineering accreditation criteria (“1-7” versus “a-k”). To provide an insight into the origins of EC 2000, the “Gang of Six,” consisting of a group of individuals loyal to ABET who used the pressure exerted by external organizations, along with a shared rhetoric of national competitiveness to forge a common vision organized around the expanded emphasis on professional skill sets. It was also significant that the Gang of Six was aware of the fact that the regional accreditation agencies were already contemplating a shift towards outcomes assessment; several also had a background in industrial engineering. However, this resulted in an assessment protocol for EC 2000 that remained ambiguous about whether the stated learning outcomes (Criterion 3) was something faculty had to demonstrate for all of their students, or whether EC 2000’s main emphasis was continuous improvement. When it proved difficult to demonstrate learning outcomes on the part of all students, ABET itself began to place greater emphasis on total quality management and continuous process improvement (TQM/CPI). This gave institutions an opening to begin using increasingly limited and proximate measures for the “a-k” student outcomes as evidence of effort and improvement. In what social scientific terms would be described as “tactical” resistance to perceived oppressive structures, this enabled ABET coordinators and the faculty in charge of degree programs, many of whom had their own internal improvement processes, to begin referring to the a-k criteria as “difficult to achieve” and “ambiguous,” which they sometimes were. Inconsistencies in evaluation outcomes enabled those most discontented with the a-k student outcomes to use ABET’s own organizational processes to drive the latest revisions to EAC accreditation criteria, although the organization’s own process for member and stakeholder input ultimately restored much of the professional skill sets found in the original EC 2000 criteria. Other refinements were also made to the standard, including a new emphasis on diversity. This said, many within our interview population believe that EC 2000 had already achieved much of the changes it set out to achieve, especially with regards to broader professional skills such as communication, teamwork, and design. Regular faculty review of curricula is now also a more routine part of the engineering education landscape. While programs vary in their engagement with ABET, there are many who are skeptical about whether the new criteria will produce further improvements to their programs, with many arguing that their own internal processes are now the primary drivers for change. 

   more » « less