Search for: All records

In this BoF we discuss the tenets of culturally responsive computer science and how teachers, professors and providers of professional development can include culturally responsive perspectives in their classes. In contrast to other academic fields, which typically include rigid curricular tracks ostensibly based on academic performance, talent, or ability that pose structural barriers to access to rigorous academic instruction for underrepresented students, the field of computer science education is explicitly focused on broadening participation, as evidenced by the SIGCSE community's consistent emphasis on equitable representation. Culturally responsive computing (CRC) is founded on culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and on CRT's three tenets: asset building (in contrast to deficit approaches), reflection, and connectedness. CRC frames these tenets for the specifics of computing education. CRC's tenet that all students are capable of digital innovation should drive teachers' interactions and relationships with students. CRC also requires that teachers be continually reflective about their privilege and constraints and how those are connected with our worldviews. This topic is significant because teachers must be connected to their students in non-traditional ways that prize diversity as an asset to innovation. The participants are expected to include professors, lecturers, high school teachers and industry experts who are interested in employing culturally responsive computing approaches in their own teaching and professional development activities. A major goal of the BoF is to establish connections among the participants to promote the sharing of resources and best practices. 

This paper investigates prospective computer science teachers’ perceptions of the concepts of inquiry and equity, and how these concepts changed or developed over the course of a week-long professional development (PD) experience. Initial results indicate that teachers’ meanings for inquiry were, even at the start of the PD, well-informed. Teachers’ perceptions of equity were more uncertain at the start of the PD but developed over the course of the week, resulting in more teachers’ exhibiting an asset-based approach to equity as well as greater confidence in implementing equitable practices. 

This paper presents an overview of the objectives and design of a video game, CodeTracesure, that we have used in a summer camp for elementary school African-American children. The game is designed to help children practice CS concepts as they play and to help teachers learn about their difficulties. It combines engaging elements of good games with pedagogy to provide a platform where students can practice CS concepts learned in class. It covers such concepts as assignment, variables, sequencing, and operators. The game is equipped with a database to facilitate collection of data that can be analyzed for trends and patterns. The current goal is for it to be a supplementary tool that can help the students practice while allowing teachers to collect useful data that can help improve the learning process. An initial study was conducted using this game with about 40 African-American elementary school children. Findings show that the game was useful in motivating the students to practice code tracing and learn CS concepts. The backend end data that was collected on the performance of the students helped to identify potential pitfalls. 

You develop a plan for testing the prototype for a new learning strategy in your class or across institutions. How can you ensure that your plan is clearly understood by reviewers and the managing NSF program officer? What goes through the reviewer's mind once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding but another declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand an idea, identify its merit, and value a PI's vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of proposal to award or decline, touching on NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, mapping the project pipeline to appropriate evaluation. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one's own proposal writing. For further information and travel support see: https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/. Laptops recommended. 

With the introduction of single‐sex classroom settings in coeducational public schools, there is an ongoing debate as to whether single‐sex education may reduce or reinforce traditional stereotypes and gender roles. In this article we present findings from a study that investigated the extent to which mathematics is perceived as a gendered domain among adolescent students enrolled in single‐sex classes and coeducational classes. Further we analyzed the relationships between student characteristics, class‐type, and teacher variables on students' perceptions of gender in mathematics. Findings from this study challenge the traditional view of mathematics as a male domain. Female participants more frequently considered mathematics to be a female domain than the male participants. Male participants, on the other hand, typically did not stereotype the mathematics as a gendered domain. Results from this study do not indicate, for girls at least, that participation in single‐sex classes results in a greater propensity to stereotype mathematics as a gendered domain than would be the case in coeducational classes. This study contributes to the evolving discourse and understanding of adolescents' gendered attitudes and beliefs towards mathematics—especially in light of stereotyped assertions that have a bearing on efforts to promote the learning of mathematics and science.

 

You develop the prototype for a new learning strategy, and want to test it in class or across institutions. You identify an NSF program that supports proposals for the idea, and then what? What goes through the minds of reviewers once a proposal is submitted? What prompts one proposal to be recommended for funding while another is declined? Close examination of the panel review process can inform proposal writing and ensure that reviewers will understand a PI’s idea, identify its merit, and value a PI’s vision of how the work will broaden participation in STEM education. This workshop steps through the NSF proposal review process from submission of a proposal to award or decline, touching on elements of a good review, NSF intellectual merit and broader impact criteria, elements of a good proposal, and volunteering to review proposals. Participants gain insight into writing a good review and improving one’s own proposal writing. The interactive workshop leads participants through each topic by introducing related issues, engaging participants in group exercises designed to explore and share their understanding of the issues, and providing “expert” opinion on these issues. Examples include funded and non-funded projects and a Top Ten List of Do’s and Don’ts. One night of lodging and workshop registration fees will be covered by an NSF grant for the first 25 participants who submit their own one-page proposal summary to the organizers one month prior to the workshop and participate fully in the workshop. For further information see - https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~etkraem/UPCSEd/ 

A correction to this paper has been published: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09344-w