Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power: Toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity
In this episode I unpack Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé’s (2016) publication titled “Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity,” which provides a critique of maker culture discourse in order to "reconceptualize the educational practice of making in ways that place equity at the center" (p. 215).
-
Welcome back to another episode of the CSK8 podcast.
My name is Jared O'Leary.
This week's episode, I'm going to be unpacking some scholarship.
For the past couple weeks, I've kind of talked
about some maker culture of practices and pedagogical suggestions
through some questions that might be asked.
But today I'm going to read an article that is a critique on maker
culture discourse.
The article is titled Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power
Common toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity.
And it is by the authors sharing possibly Paula Hooper and Meg Askew day.
And apologies.
I probably butchered at least two of those names.
And as always, a friendly reminder, you can find a Google scholar profiles
and a link to the article itself by going to the show notes, which you can find
hopefully in your podcast app wherever you're listening or by visiting.
Gerard O'Leary dot com. Okay.
So here's the abstract quote.
In this essay, Sheeran for Sogi, Paula Hooper and Megan Scooter
advance a critique of branded culturally normative
definitions of making and caution
against their uncritical adoption into the educational sphere.
The authors argue that the ways making in equity are conceptualized
can either restrict or expand the possibility that the growing maker
movement will contribute to intellectually generative and liberatory
educational experiences for working class students and students of color.
After reviewing various perspectives on making as educated as practice,
they present a framework that treats the following principles
as starting points for equity oriented research and design.
Critical analysis of educational injustice.
Historicist approaches to making as cross-cultural activity.
Explicit attention to pedagogical philosophies in practice
and ongoing inquiry into the social, political values and purposes of making.
These principles are grounded in their own research and teaching.
Any tinkering after school program, as well as in the insights and questions
raised by critical voices both inside and outside the Maker movement, end quote.
So if I were to summarize this particular article into one sentence,
I would say the authors provide a critique of maker culture discourse in order to,
quote, reconceptualize the educational practice of making in ways
that place equity at the center, end quote.
It's page 215 for that.
So to kind of give you a sample of some of the questions
that the authors are asking.
Here are some questions on page 217 book.
Who has access to more intellectually complex activity within the space?
Are there gendered or racialized patterns of tool use, participation or assistance?
Are multiple pathways and ways of knowing, supported or marginalized?
What kinds of mentorship are available to help youth navigate
everyday encounters with racism and other forms of marginalization?
And if and how do making environments attend to the histories of practices
young people are involved in, end quote.
And here are a couple more from page 226.
Quote What kind of political and economic subject is the learner
within a making environment?
To what extent are students
in the United States being positioned as future workers or entrepreneurs?
What alternative identities and subjectivities are eclipsed
in the process, end quote.
So I hope those questions kind of give you a good grasp of
and the overall theme of this particular article.
So these are some excellent questions that can not only ask
within a maker culture, but within any kind of sex education context.
So I hope that by listening to this episode,
it kind of gives you a good teaser to want to go and read the article itself,
which again, you can find in the show notes.
So the authors begin by challenging the dominant characterization of making
quotes as a uniquely American activity focused on technological forms
of innovation that advance hands on learning
and contribute to the growth of the economy.
End quote. Page two of seven.
So they argue that the discourse around making tends to kind of discuss
taking things apart, designing and building and testing out solutions
that tend to focus on new technological or even commercial innovations.
In particular, they mention that much of the discourse
around maker culture centers around kind of a narrow set of actors
or rather expensive tools to use, while also de-emphasizing ways
and making that do not kind of fit within such practices.
So as an example from page 208, quote Material repair and trade hacking,
making a social or artistic practice and economic survival in quote are kind of
de-emphasized within make your culture, practices and discourse.
The authors suggest that this is particularly problematic
because they suggest making, quote, is grounded in the histories,
needs, assets and experiences of working class students and students of color.
End quote. From page 210.
However, this history is largely ignored or kind of like whitewashed.
One of the goals is to actually identify, quote, the dangers present
in the uncritical adoption of branded versions, making particularly
with regard to their implications for educational equity, end quote.
It's on page to ten.
So at the start of the article, the authors cite some scholarship
that suggests that maker culture movement began when Make magazine was founded.
So the previous unpacking scholarship episode that aired two weeks ago
and I've looked at some of the practices
evident within a year's worth of Make magazine publications.
So you can see that episode to learn some more of those practices.
And again,
although this particular article is a critique of a maker culture discourse,
I still think that much of the practices that I discussed two weeks ago
are very valuable for CEOs, educators to be aware of
and potentially try and integrate into the classroom.
However, this particular episode suggests that we need to focus on equity
oriented ideologies or design if we are to engage in such practices.
Although maker culture discourse tends to suggest that
these practices are a new thing and look at all these fancy
things that you need to buy in order to engage in them.
The authors suggest that practices, discuss and make your culture
have in fact been a core part of vocational education
throughout much of the 20th century and only recently has
it been turned into a movement for middle class kids.
Here's a quote from page 12.
Quote In the process, working class communities of color are once again
positioned as targets of intervention rather than sources of deep knowledge
and skill.
And dominant communities are inscribed as being ahead
with something to teach or offer rather than something to learn, end quote.
This is a really important quote to think about.
So in what ways might we as educators unintentionally
becoming into some of the communities that we work into as if we are the people
who have the knowledge while ignoring or considering
the community members that we're working with as having some kind of a deficit?
Here's a quote from page 213.
We agree that there is a need to transform what counts as learning,
and that making can play an important role in this expansion.
However, we question the idea that the maker movement
and specifically its forays into the educational sphere,
has thus far represented a bold step towards equity.
As Barton, Tian and Greenberg note maker, spaces that have reached beyond
dominant populations are the exception and not the norm.
With little research documenting what is working, how or why.
End quote.
I totally agree that there is not enough research on major spaces,
especially at the time of this publication,
which was about three years ago at the time of this recording.
However, I would argue that much of the Maker
Culture scholarship is useful for understanding these spaces
that blur together a variety of practices, that blur disciplinary boundaries
that are often siloed in a formalized educational context.
So as an example, in my dissertation, I found that
there were a lot of practices that these musicians were engaging in
to create music with old video game hardware and software.
And much of these practices that people engage in if they occurred in
an educational context, would likely have been siloed into a particular class.
So like we're only going to focus on music,
performing and composition, or we're only going to focus
on the hardware or manufacturing or tinkering or remixing,
or we're only going to focus on the entrepreneurial side of things.
However, within the discussion forum
that I studied, these practices were not siloed.
In fact, members of the forum often cycled between the different practices
and engaged with them at their own leisure or interest, rather than being forced
down a particular pathway or limited to engaging with a particular practice
within a particular context, such as in a class solely dedicated to one thing.
The authors of this article suggest that the current
positioning of maker culture can actually reproduce historical inequalities.
For example, some people try and ask questions about who has access to making
and maker practices in order to strive towards a more equitable approach.
However, quote this question implies that making writ large is synonymous
with the ways it is defined in the current maker movement,
and that this form of making
is a historically novel and inherently desirable activity
that should be practiced by all students and communities,
spurred by efforts to delineate and market an emerging field.
These assumptions align with an interest in setting making apart
from other forms of creative human activity.
In quote from page 214.
So in other words, it fails to understand the historical roots of maker practices,
and it also fails to recognize that practices that involve
working with one hands are not novel approach to many in the communities
that we might be working with, especially within blue collar communities.
One of the key suggestions for placing equity at the center maker practices
is to, quote, start with the assumption that practices resonate with making
are already present in diverse forms in all communities, end quote.
Page 218.
So thinking back to the previous episodes, and particularly the interviews
many of the guests have recommended on the show to start with what kids know
and are interested in
and how that approach tends to work a lot better than giving the impression
that you are going to teach something about a person's identities
or cultures that they already know more about than you might be assuming.
The authors also suggest that we need to not only question who is
and who is not participating in what is branded as the maker movement.
So think of the previous Unpacking scholarship episode that found that 89%
of the MAKE magazine authors in that particular study were male.
But also thinking through
why people are choosing not to participate in such practices.
Now, this relates to CSR education.
So we not only need more scholarship that looks at balances among different
gender identities and racial identities and other forms of
identities that are often including marginalized groups.
But looking at the reasons why people are not engaging in particular practices.
So, for example, on page 218 to 19, the authors quote another article
that says, quote, In addition to asking How can we get girls and women
to participate in traditional computer science
and support them once they are there, we should ask
how can we integrate computer science with activities and communities
that girls and women are already engaged in, end quote.
So this approach shifts the framing from a deficit
towards a focus on what students are interested in.
And many of the guests in this show have made similar recommendations
to focus on student interest.
In fact, I think almost all of the interviews
have mentioned that at some point throughout the conversation.
And this is one of the many reasons why the curriculum
that I developed for boot up is interest driven and that the classes
that I designed and facilitated were also interest driven.
So if you want to learn more about the resources
that I created in the classroom or that I continue to create,
you can find those in the show notes.
All of the resources are 100% free to use.
I just asked you simply share with other people.
Okay, so on page 219, the authors
provide an excellent point that quote, efforts to draw borders
around making set up, making itself as the goal of educational practice
rather than treating making as one among the many tools
that can productively intersect with other rich forms of learning.
Narrow definitions of making also demarcate
which educational environments are considered maker spaces
and can therefore access related sources of funding
as well as who counts as a maker and who does not, end quote.
And this is one of the reasons why I've actually been exploring
maker culture in the last couple of unpacking scholarship episodes,
because such practices and pedagogies can occur
within spaces that are not defined as a makerspace.
For example, in your case classroom or your classroom that integrates.
Yes, you can incorporate maker culture practices
without having to label it as a makerspace or to call kids makers.
However, the authors later mentioned that Maker practices me not to be bound
to a STEM or steam discipline and are multidisciplinary in nature.
So in other words, although maker culture practices can occur within
computer science education, they can occur within any subject area
as well as across a multitude of subject areas,
which for me is one of the more interesting and fun things that I like
to explore in educational research and just in facilitating in general.
So if you want to see some examples of some music related practices
that kind of blur these disciplinary boundaries
and whatnot, Chapter four of my dissertation
talks about that in the show notes.
I have a direct link to the page.
I think it's on PDF page 99, if I remember correctly, where it unpacks
the different themes and subthemes found in the dissertation findings itself.
So in previous episodes
I mentioned some child centered pedagogical approaches give the impression
that direct instruction should be avoided at all costs.
However, I've mentioned that we need to focus on whether
such instruction is situated within a moment.
Like when I talk about GS situated learning and understandings
and whether or not it is actually needed by an individual or group of kids.
So for example, if you haven't heard it yet, listen to the interview
with John Stapleton and we kind of talk about direct instruction
and how some novice teachers assume that they should avoid at all costs.
And what I recommend instead is to
try and find some kind of a balance between exploration and discovery
with direct instruction to kind of guide understanding
rather than to lecture throughout an entire class.
Now, the authors on page 20 make the following point quote
We worry that an overreliance on child centered pedagogies
that emphasize the avoidance of direct assistance overlooks the powerful role
intentional teaching can play in challenging deficit ideologies
and cultivating substantive experiences of intellectual dignity,
as well as the need to make pedagogical structures
visible within research, design and professional development.
End quote.
And here's another quote from page 223 that elaborates on this a little quote
There are existing threads within constructionist research
suggesting that the theory and its application could benefit
from a more nuanced perspective on the role of direct assistance
and the social organization of making environments, end quote.
So in other words, the authors also recommend
not avoiding direct instruction entirely, but thinking of the more nuanced ways
that you can use direct instruction to kind of guide kids towards
understanding or to challenge some of the problematic assumptions
or discourse that other people might have related to the subject area.
Now, the end of the article provides two vignettes of making and further question
some of the socio political values the making in this article, by summarizing
some suggestions that people interested in equity oriented
design within make or culture should start thinking through.
So, for example, by engaging in quote, critical analyzes of educational
injustice, historicist approaches to making as cross-cultural activity,
explicit attention to pedagogy and inquiry into the socio
political values and purposes of making in quote from page 27.
Now, there is a lot more to unpack in this particular article,
but hopefully this episode serves as a teaser to encourage
you to want to actually read the article itself.
So I've got a couple of lingering questions or thoughts
after having read this article.
So one of them is how might we as a field critically reflect on
and discuss biases within practices or philosophies
that are commonplace or generally unquestioned within CSE education?
So for example, constructionism is a very popular epistemology
that people use in CSE education,
but in what way are critically reflecting on and questioning
some of the assumptions or biases
that might be involved in constructionist practices?
And this is just one example.
So what I'd recommend doing is thinking through the different discourses
in computer science education and kind of questioning
whose needs are being served for what purposes and at what cost.
Now, I actually wrote an article for a music education journal
with Cathy Benedict that kind of discusses this a little bit more.
So it talks about music
making in music technology and freedom in the age of neoliberalism.
So if you want to read a little bit more of a critical perspective on a topic
related to this article and that is of interest to the field
of computer science, I'll include a link to that article in the show notes.
It is free to read, so no need to buy or anything like that.
Now another question that I have is
how might we use some of the equity oriented makerspace pedagogy is without
unintentionally positioning kids or communities within a deficit ideology.
So in other words, the authors rightly request bringing attention
to some of the problematic nature of make or culture discourse
that can come across as positioning of community within a deficit.
So how might we engage
in some of these pedagogical practices without potentially causing
unintentional harm to kids that we work with or the communities that we work in?
Another question that I have is in what ways might see US educators encourage
Kestrel practices already engage with by the communities we work with.
So in other words, in what ways do the kids and their families engage in
computer science, and how might we encourage that
within our classroom to kind of build off of that foundational understanding
rather than coming in and assuming that kids are not engaging
in computer science or their families are not engaging in computer science
and presenting computer science from an outsider perspective.
So those are some of the questions that I have.
I'm sure if you were to read through this article,
which I highly recommend, that you would have a bunch more questions
and a lot more things to kind of think through.
I hope this episode helped demonstrate that we need to think critically
about the different approaches that we are using and how they may or may
not unintentionally cause harm to the kids and communities that we work with.
And I hope that it encourages other educators to engage
in conversations about this as a field.
I think this is something that we should be talking about more.
If you're interested in continuing the conversation,
the show notes has some more resources that might help
guide you in different directions that may help with that.
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
I know this was a little bit different than previous
unpacking scholarship episodes in that this is much more of a critique
on something rather than discussing potential implications of findings.
Next week is going to be another interview, and then following
that, we'll have yet another unpacking scholarship episode.
I hope you all have a wonderful week and I will talk to you later.
Article
Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232.
Abstract
“In this essay, Shirin Vossoughi, Paula Hooper, and Meg Escudé advance a critique of branded, culturally normative definitions of making and caution against their uncritical adoption into the educational sphere. The authors argue that the ways making and equity are conceptualized can either restrict or expand the possibility that the growing maker movement will contribute to intellectually generative and liberatory educational experiences for working-class students and students of color. After reviewing various perspectives on making as educative practice, they present a framework that treats the following principles as starting points for equity-oriented research and design: critical analyses of educational injustice; historicized approaches to making as cross-cultural activity; explicit attention to pedagogical philosophies and practices; and ongoing inquiry into the sociopolitical values and purposes of making. These principles are grounded in their own research and teaching in the Tinkering Afterschool Program as well as in the insights and questions raised by critical voices both inside and outside the maker movement.”
My One Sentence Summary
The authors provide a critique of maker culture discourse in order to "reconceptualize the educational practice of making in ways that place equity at the center" (p. 215).
Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts
How might we as a field critically reflect on and discuss biases within practices or philosophies that are commonplace or generally unquestioned within CS education?
How might we use some of the equity-oriented makerspace pedagogies without unintentionally positioning kids or communities within a deficit ideology?
In what ways might CS educators encourage CS-related practices already engaged with by the communities we work with?
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
Assessment Considerations: A Simple Heuristic
In this episode I read and unpack my (2019) publication titled “Assessment Considerations: A Simple Heuristic,” which is intended to serve as a heuristic for creating or selecting an assessment.
How to Get Started with Computer Science Education
In this episode I provide a framework for how districts and educators can get started with computer science education for free.
Intersections of Equity, Making, and Computer Science with Roxana Hadad
In this interview with Roxana Hadad, we discuss the blurring of formal and informal learning within makerspaces and culture, how Roxana’s understanding of education evolved over time, feeling lost when having too much choice with one’s learning, the intersections of makerspaces and equity, problematizing discourse and definitions around computational thinking and computer science, preventing burnout while working on many different projects, feeling a lack of agency in education, the future of communication for academics, and so much more.
Making Sense of Making: Defining Learning Practices in MAKE Magazine
In this episode I unpack Brahms and Crowley’s (2016) publication titled “Making sense of making: Defining learning practices in MAKE magazine,” which is a content analysis that uses communities of practice as a framework for exploring maker practices evident within MAKE magazine.
In this episode I unpack Bowler and Champagne’s (2009) publication titled “Mindful makers: Question prompts to help guide young peoples' critical technical practices in maker spaces in libraries, museums, and community-based youth organizations,” which "examines question prompts as a means to scaffold reflection and reflexivity in the design, development, and use of technological artifacts in maker spaces for youth at public libraries, museums, and community-based organizations" (abstract).
Reconceptualizing “Music Making:” Music Technology and Freedom in the Age of Neoliberalism
In this episode I unpack Benedict and O’Leary’s (2019) publication titled “Reconceptualizing “music making:” Music technology and freedom in the age of Neoliberalism,” which explores the use of computer science practices to counter neoliberal influence on education.
Chapter Two of my dissertation briefly summarizes maker culture
Chapter Four of my dissertation summarizes music-related practices that blur disciplinary boundaries
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
Free CS Resources I Have Created
More Content
