Equity in Computer Science Education

Equity in Computer Science Education
Jared O'Leary
Download

In this episode I unpack the chapter titled “Equity in Computer Science Education” from the K-12 Computer Science Framework (2016). This chapter discusses how equity issues influenced the development of the framework, which was used to develop CSTA’s national CS standards and many state CS standards.

  • Welcome back to another episode of the CSK8 podcast. My name is Jared O'Leary. So two weeks ago, the Unpacking scholarship episode encouraged you to go through some of the anti-racist resources that were in the show notes. I hope you took some time to go through some of those. I personally am still continuing to learn, grow, share, discuss, etc..

    Speaking of which, I have already contacted several guests who have agreed to come on the show and specifically talk about issues related to equity, racism, etc. in relation to CSS, education. So stay tuned for those guests and just know that in advance. Many of the recordings that I do for interviews are done sometimes months in advance, though sometimes it takes a while, some actually to publish.

    Now, this week's unpacking scholarship episode is going to look at a chapter from the K-12 computer science framework, which can be found at K-12. CSS Dawg And it's k one to see us talk. A particular chapter that I'm going to kind of unpack in this week's episode is titled Equity in Computer Science Education, and it's on pages 23 through 38, and it is available to read for free at K-12.

    Org and I will have direct links to the actual page number in the show notes. Now, if you're unfamiliar with the K-12 framework, it is basically the guide that was used to create the CTA national standards. So the K-12 framework kind of outlines the overall like visions or purpose of computer science in education. And it talks specifically about the concepts that kids should learn, like the things that kids are supposed to be able to understand, and then the practices which are like the things that kids are supposed to be able to do when engaging in computer science education.

    Now, the USDA national standards and many of these state standards that have been developed since the release of the framework are based off of this. So basically, what many states have done and CTA is they took some of the concepts and the practices from the K-12 framework and have combined them together in terms of something to be able to understand and something to be able to do the concept in practice and then created a standard based off of that.

    So here's a quote from page 24 that kind of summarizes what this chapter is about. Quote This chapter reviews equity issues related to computer science, describes how these issues have influenced the development of the framework and offers brief examples of current efforts to promote equity in computer science education. While equity is the focus of this chapter, it also serves as a major theme connecting all aspects of the framework.

    The core concepts and practices, the guidance chapters, and even the development process. End quote. So at the beginning of this chapter, the authors posit that, quote, Computer science for all students requires that equity be at the forefront of any reform effort, whether at the policy level of a framework or at the school level of instruction in classroom culture.

    End quote is from page 23. So this includes not only access to computer science classes, but the opportunity to achieve at similar levels with other peers in the class, regardless of demographic factors. So here's a quote that kind of unpacks this a little bit more from page 23. Quote, Equity is not just about whether classes are available, but also about how those classes are taught, how students are recruited, and how the classroom culture supports diverse learners and promotes retention.

    The result of equity is a diverse classroom of students based on factors such as race, gender, disability, socioeconomic status and English language proficiency, all of whom have high expectations and feel empowered to learn, end quote. So just as a funny aside, actually had to rerecord me saying English. I did it again. English language proficiency multiple times because I kept messing up English language proficiency.

    So anyways, so that kind of summarizes what I'm going to talk about through the remainder of this chapter. It's kind of give us a good preamble to everything else we're about to explore. So in the next section that's titled The Need to Address Equity in Computer Science, the authors cite a couple of studies that indicate most schools at the time of writing did not have access to computer computer science opportunities.

    And they also note that the numbers are even lower than were reported because some of the administrators may have confused computer science with computer literacy. I'm sure all of us have had some kind of experience with somebody, whether it's in education or outside of it, who conflates computer science with simply using a device or software. In addition, they cite discrepancies in gender and race among students who participate in the Advanced Placement Computer Science Exam, AP exam.

    So, for example, in 2015, quote, only 21.9% of students were female. The worst female participation rate of all the AP exams and only 3.9% were black or African-American, 9% were Spanish or Latino, and 0.4% were American Indian. End quote. As from page 25, one of the things that they cite as a contributing factor is the overwhelming number of media portrayals of computer scientists as either white or Asian males who wear glasses.

    So next time you're watching like some kind of a TV show or you happen to see the news and they mention anything related to computer science, take a look at the imagery that's going on in that screen and ask, what kind of stereotypes is this reinforcing or changing? Now, these discrepancies in terms of access in K-12 settings and the amount of participation when there is access available, also carry over into who graduates with the same degree and who works in computer science or math related jobs.

    Now, thankfully, there have been a lot of efforts lately with like hashtags, like I'm an engineer or things like that where it's showing like, hey, the field of computer science, stem steam, etc. is not just white and Asian men wearing glasses. All right. So the next section in this chapter is called Equity in the Framework. So in this section, it talks about how the team created this document and made equity a priority right from the get go.

    So here's a quote from page 26. The goal of promoting diversity shaped the framework's entire development process and began with the make up of the team of people developing the framework. The writers and advisors were demographically diverse based on gender, race, ethnicity, institutional representation, a state district agency, nonprofit research industry, K-12 school, as well as populations with which they work or study, unquote.

    This is definitely something that I appreciate that from the very beginning. This framework was developed with a wide range of people and perspectives that were all kind of brought to the table. And you can see the bios in the appendices at the end, or you can read the names at the start of the framework. Now, another thing that I point out in this particular section is that the framework was designed for all students, not just the honors or, quote, gifted students.

    So, for example, they analyzed the verbiage of the concepts, the wording and the practice as well, to try and limit any biases based on gender, culture or disability and things like that. And again, I really appreciate that they actually took the time to look at the language and consider a range of implementation and people who would actually engage with these concepts and practices.

    I think that's extremely important. Anytime you're designing anything that's going to be used for other people, especially something you use nationally like this document is. So in addition, the concepts that they wrote out are more at the conceptual level rather than a prescriptive, narrow set of ideas that people need to adhere to. So this is important because it encourages a broad range of implementation.

    So each state or municipality or district or teacher can kind of use these concepts and practices in ways that benefit the individual kids that they are working with rather than going with a blanket. Every single kid in the nation has to do this very narrow thing or understand this very narrow thing. And the concepts are also broken down into a progression that reflects the learning development across grade bands.

    The, for example, kids who are in K-2 are going to learn some different concepts or different depths of concepts. Then the kids in six through eight or nine through 12 or three through five, and the practices section is more about actually doing something with understandings. So doing computer science rather than just knowing computer science. So it's important to note that this framework combines both the concepts which are the knowing or understandings and the practices which are the doing.

    In other words, some kind of application of understanding, which is something that we have reiterated on several prior episodes in the interviews and even some of the unpacking scholarship episodes. So there's another section in this chapter that's on examples of equity in the concepts and practice statements themselves. So if you're interested in seeing some examples of that, you can read that section.

    However, the section is rather self-explanatory because the concepts and practices very clearly integrate equity throughout their descriptions. All right. So let's talk about the final main section. It's titled Efforts to Increase Access and Opportunity. So in this section, they talk about how inequities can appear in course offerings. Isaiah says integrated or not integrated, B curricular use and the level of expertise of the person teaching or facilitating that curricula.

    How the school is held or not held accountable for implementing computer science and more. So these are all very important things to consider when it comes to equity and opportunity. So the authors suggest as one way to increase access and opportunity is to engage in pair programing, which can help with various inequalities. So pair programing is like where you have one device and you have two kids working together.

    Typically you'd have one kid who is like the driver or controls the mouse and keyboard and the other kid is what's called the navigator and they're kind of like talking through the stuff that the driver is going to do. And then like every year on and on, five, 10 minutes, however long you want, you could switch roles. So that way everybody gets an opportunity to do the coding or engaging with the C and then do the thinking behind it, while obviously engaging in discussion throughout with the partners.

    Now they do point out that pair programing can help with inequalities unless the pair is incompatible with each other. So if you pair two kids who just really don't get along with each other, this is going to impact their learning. Another thing that can impact their learning is if the focus is too much on completing the assignment or project or activity or whatever quickly, rather than actually collaboratively trying to create a quality product.

    In addition, social influences outside of programing with peers can have an impact. So if you listen to the episode that released last week with Stacy Mason and Peter Rich, you can hear from more discussion on some of the social influences on computer science, education and learning. Another key thing that the authors recommend as something to think through is to apply understandings of universal design for learning to accommodate for a range of differentiation.

    nd this is something that I want to talk about more in future episodes. Stay tuned for upcoming episodes where I kind of unpack what does Universal design for learning look like in computer science education? Okay, so here's some more concrete examples of accommodations or considerations that you can make for computer science education. And these are based off of some of the ideas in this particular chapter.

    So one that they mentioned is using block based languages. And how can assist with kids who have dyslexia. Now, as a counterpoint, however, this can also inhibit students who are using screen readers. So for more of a discussion on that, listen to the episode with Andrea Stephanie, which kind of unpacks that a bit more. Another consideration is rather than having computer science as a standalone course, some schools are opting to integrate into other subject areas.

    So, for example, bootstrap, not to be confused with the nonprofit I work for, but UP integrates coding into algebra, physics and data science. So for interested in learning more about that, I'll include a link to bootstrap inside the shownotes. You can see how they're integrating computer science and coding into those different subject areas. Another example that they recommend is using unplugged lessons as a way to kind of learn computational thinking and many computer science topics, even when there is a lack of devices or Internet.

    While I do agree with this, I think this creates a watered down version of computer science in that unplugged activities tend to lack the depth of application or creativity and problem solving that can be done on devices or with a device. But that's just kind of my own perspective on that. I'm sure there are many great arguments against that, and I can think of some myself, but I still generally lean toward what I just said in that I prefer engaging with software and hardware rather than just kind of engaging with the concept through unplugged experiences.

    But that's just my preference. So on page 33, they have the following quote This work is of critical importance as 13% of students in U.S. public schools receive special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. And another significant portion of students receive accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, end quote. The chapter cites a couple of places you can go to learn more about initiatives, languages and frameworks that can help with this area.

    And I'm not going to tell you them because I want to encourage you to actually read this chapter so far. Now, this is an area I'm particularly passionate about because I do identify as having some mental disabilities that have impacted my studies and ways of being. I highly recommend, if it's not on one of the forefront of the ways that you're thinking when designing educational experiences or facilitating or teaching them is to consider thinking through different disabilities that be kids, that you work with have, and how you might make accommodations to better assist them with their learning and their experiences in your classroom.

    And here's a final quote from page 35 Quote Other practices that teachers can adopt and adapt to change classroom culture include practicing culturally relevant pedagogy that brings computer science together with students experiences, culture and interests, developing relationships with students that are respectful of different backgrounds and empathetic to different needs and interests, reflecting on beliefs and actions to address stereotypes among students and teachers alike, applying instructional strategies that support struggling learners and those with disabilities in other content areas within computer science education e.g. if verbal prompting helps in math instruction, it will likely help in computer science instruction as well, and connecting computer science to concepts that motivate children like fairness and social justice in quote.

    All of those are excellent points. Many of the guests that I have interviewed on this podcast have reiterated those things, as well as many of the other unpacking scholarship episodes that I have already discussed and many of the upcoming episodes. Okay, So I have a couple of lingering questions or thoughts. So one is how might this document change if it were written today?

    So in other words, how has the discussion around equity changed since 2016? So, for example, the discussions on gender discuss the lack of women in CIS across the board as in like in K-12, university and related professions. What about nonbinary individuals? So many CSO organizations have done a good job with discussing diversity in gender and sexuality, but this document itself doesn't actually reflect that as well as I think it could.

    And I say that as somebody who does identify as non-binary. In addition, with the current discussions around anti-racist practices in education, what do others see as educators want to learn more about that isn't discussed in this document? In the episode that released two weeks ago, the one that's titled I Can't Breathe. There are a ton of resources in there about anti-racism that I highly recommend checking out though if you haven't done so already, please check out the show notes for that episode.

    And as kind of like a final reflection. At the time of writing, this document seemed very progressive, but it now seems like it honestly doesn't dive deep enough into some of the issues around equity. Now, because this document is not being constantly updated. Where can we go to learn more? So I want to kind of point to some episodes that I've done in the past that you can listen to, and these episodes have many more links inside the show notes that can point you to more resources to dive deeper into this.

    So for example, like I mentioned, the episode that released two weeks ago called I Can't Breathe has episodes related to race and anti-racism, so I'd highly recommend checking that one out If you're interested in learning more about that, which I think as educators, we all should be interested in learning more about that. For discussion on equity centered approach to CEOs, education, listen to the episode.

    That's an interview with Rafi Sato and Sarah Vogel, and it's titled The Key Visions Framework and Equity Centered Computing Education with Rafi Santoro and Sarah Vogel for discussions around disability in education and in particular discussions around site disabilities. Listen to the interview with Andre Esthetic, which is titled Accessible CCG through evidence based programing languages with Andrea Stephanie for discussion on activism and equity and gender as well.

    Listen to the interview with Ken Wilkins, which is titled Promoting Equity and Activism in Computer Science Education with Kim Wilkins for discussion on gender issues in CSE. Listen to the episode with Sarah Judd titled A.I. for All Curriculum Development and Gender Discourse with Sarah Jed for discussion on the potential for sex and healing individuals and communities. Listen to the episode with Katie Henry titled Micro Bit Somatic Learning and see us for Healing with Katie Henry for discussion on culturally relevant and culturally responsive pedagogy in Scratch curriculum.

    See the Unpacking scholarship episode I did titled Scratch Encore The design and pilot of a culturally relevant intermediate scratch curriculum and for discussion on the problems with maker culture discourse, see the Unpacking Scholarship episode I did titled Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity. That episode in particular is very relevant to some of these discussions going on with racism and anti-racism in education.

    Now, all of these episodes I've linked to in the show notes. So if you just go there and click on it and it takes you directly to the episode to listen to that episode. Learn from the guests that are on there and then check out the show notes, which again has a lot more resources related to each one of these topics.

    Now, that being said, on a very positive note, I have reached out to several more guests to discuss topics about equity and inclusion. So stay tuned for more interviews down the road that specifically address those topics, as well as many other topics that we will continue to discuss each week when an episode releases. Now, if you haven't done so already, I hope this episode kind of teased you enough to want to go and read the actual document as a whole.

    Again, this is only chapter two of many chapters in this document, and it is extremely important for us educators to understand the key concepts and practices that have informed likely the standards that you're using in your classroom. Don't remember. You can find a link directly to this in the show notes or by visiting K-12 Korg. I hope this episode was useful for you.

    Stay tuned next week for another interview and then two weeks from now there will be another unpacking scholarship episode. I hope everyone is staying safe, staying healthy, and are continuing to learn and grow. As I am trying to do as well. Thank you so much for listening. I hope you all have a wonderful week.

Two Sentence Summary

"This chapter reviews equity issues related to computer science, describes how these issues have influenced the development of the framework, and offers brief examples of current efforts to promote equity in computer science education. While equity is the focus of this chapter, it also serves as a major theme connecting all aspects of the framework: the core concepts and practices, the guidance chapters, and even the development process" (p. 24).

Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts

  • How might this document change if it were written today?

    • How has the discussion around equity changed since 2016?

  • With the current discussions around anti-racist practices in education, what do other CS educators want to learn more about that isn't discussed in this document?

Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode

More Content

Unpacking ScholarshipJared O'LearyEquity, GenderComment