Search for: All records

Computing is everywhere, and it's here to stay. Computing is crucial in many disciplines and influences every discipline. It’s unlikely we'll willingly return to a society unmediated by computing. How do our institutions proceed? This BoF asks, "Should computing be a requirement for all college and university students?" Some say yes, citing potential for improving equity-of-access, for expanding students' capabilities, for diversifying the people who understand and critique computing, and for increasing the diversity of computing participation. Some say no, citing the lack of equity-of-outcomes, the infeasibility of teaching all students equitably, and students' need for freedom in choosing what they study. Some say, "Let's consider the spectrum of possibilities... ." This session will discuss these possibilities, expressed and constrained by 2024's forces. Is computing's value saturated - or soon to be? Or is computing a meta-skill, whose practice in learning-to-learn amplifies individual efficacy along all paths? Is Computing1 too gate-kept to be as equitable a GenEd as Composition1? Or does requiring computing, in fact, help dismantle those gates? Can students adequately learn about core computing concepts via non-CS courses that use computing? What might required computing entail? We invite and welcome all with an interest in computing-as-degree-requirement, program-requirement, or GenEd offering. The session's seed materials will highlight evidence against the idea, for the idea, and across its vast, uncertain middle. Our BoF proposers include researchers and educators, both non-CS-requiring and CS-requiring, as well as non-CS-required and CS-required "educatees." Join us! 

Using teaspoon languages to integrate programming across myriad academic disciplines.

 

In this study, support for teaching data literacy in social studies is provided through the design of a pedagogical support system informed by participatory design sessions with both pre‐service and in‐service social studies teachers. It provides instruction on teaching and learning data literacy in social studies, examples of standards‐based lesson plans, made‐to‐purpose data visualization tools and minimal manuals that put existing online tools in a social studies context. Based on case studies of eleven practicing teachers, this study provides insight into features of technology resources that social studies teachers find usable and useful for using data visualizations as part of standards‐ and inquiry‐based social studies instruction, teaching critical analysis of data visualizations and helping students create data visualizations with online computing tools. The final result, though, is that few of our participating teachers have yet adopted the provided resources into their own classrooms, which highlights weaknesses of the technology acceptance model for describing teacher adoption.

What is already known about this topic

Data literacy is an important part of social studies education in the United States.

Most teachers do not teach data literacy as a part of social studies.

Teachers may adopt technology to help them teach data literacy if they think it is useful and usable.

What this paper adds

Educational technology can help teachers learn about data literacy in social studies.

Social studies teachers want simple tools that fit with their existing curricula, give them new project ideas and help students learn difficult concepts.

Making tools useful and usable does not predict adoption; context plays a large role in a social studies teachers' adoption.

Implications for practice and/or policy

Designing purpose‐built tools for social studies teachers will encourage them to teach data literacy in their classes.

Professional learning opportunities for teachers around data literacy should include opportunities for experimentation with tools.

Teachers are not likely to use tools if they are not accompanied by lesson and project ideas.

 

Computer science education has been making dramatic increases in recent years. Across the US, different states are advancing computer science education through different policies. However, as a state makes choices to advance computer science education, it is critical to consider how these policies will broaden participation in computing (BPC). Many have indicated that only white and Asian males (who make up 30% of our population) currently have the opportunity/privilege to engage in computer science education. Therefore, as we implement state-level computer science education reform, it is critical that BPC remains as our guiding principle. Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) was created as an NSF national alliance to support state-level educational reform with regards to computer science. Over the past 6 years, this alliance of 22 states and Puerto Rico have worked together to share policies to advance BPC in each state. Through these experiences, ECEP has proposed that state change related to CS educational reform follows five stages: (1) Find your leader(s) and change agents; (2) understand the CS education landscape and identify the key issues/policies; (3) gather and organize your allies to establish goals and develop strategic plans and; (4) get initial funding to support change and; (5) building and utilizing data infrastructure that informs strategic BPC efforts. This study examined the ECEP alliance and the five-stage model through the 25,000+ documents and data sources over the past decade, specifically investigating how these five stages impacted states’ overall BPC efforts. Results indicated that these 5 stages seemed to support states’ BPC efforts.