Re-examining Inequalities in Computer Science Participation from a Bourdieusian Sociological Perspective
In this episode I unpack Kallia and Cutts’ (2021) publication titled “Re-examining inequalities in computer science participation from a Bourdieusian sociological perspective,” which uses Bourdieu’s discussions of capital, habitus, and field to analyze 147 publications on CS interventions.
-
Welcome back to another episode of the
CSK8 podcast my name is jared o'leary
each episode of this podcast talks about
computer science education from the
perspectives of practitioners and
researchers
by interviewing a guest or multiple
guests or doing a solo episode where i
unpack some scholarship in relation to
cs education in this particular episode
i am unpacking a paper titled
re-examining inequalities in computer
science participation from a bordugian
sociological perspective this paper was
written by maria khalia and quentin cuts
all right so here is the abstract for
this particular paper quote concerns
about participation in computer science
at all levels of education continue to
rise despite the substantial efforts of
research policy and worldwide education
initiatives in this paper which is
guided by a systemic literature review
we investigate the issue of inequalities
in participation by bringing a
theoretical lens from the sociology of
education and particularly bordeaux's
theory of social reproduction by paying
particular attention to bordeaux's
theorizing of capital abitus and field
we first establish an alignment between
bordeaux's theory and what is known
about inequalities in computer science
ces participation we demonstrate how the
factors affecting participation
constitute capital forms that
individuals possess to leverage within
the computer science field while
students views and dispositions towards
computer science and scientists are
rooted in their habitus which influences
their successful assimilation and
computer science fields subsequently by
projecting the issues of inequalities in
cs participation in bordeaux's
sociological theorizations we explain
that because most interventions do not
consider the issue holistically and not
in formal education settings the
reported benefits do not continue in the
long term which reproduces the problem
most interventions have indeed
contributed significantly to the issue
but they have either focused on
developing some aspects of computer
science capital or on designing
activities that although inclusive in
terms of their content and context
attempt to reconstruct students
habituates to fit in the already
pathologized computer science fields
therefore we argue that to contribute
significantly to the equity and
participation issue in computer science
research and interventions should focus
on reconstructing the computer science
field and the rules of participation as
well as on building holistically
students computer science capital and
habitus within computer science fields
end quote if i were to summarize this
particular paper into a single sentence
i would say that this paper uses
bordeaux's discussions of capital
habitus in field to analyze 147
publications on cs interventions now in
the show notes you can find a direct
link to this particular paper as well as
a link to the author's google scholar
profiles you can find that at jared
o'leary.com where there's hundreds if
not thousands of free cs related
resources including a link to boot up
pd.org which is the non-profit that i
create curriculum for and that
curriculum is also 100 free now just a
little disclaimer before i get started
and you probably notice this from the
abstract bordu is a little bit more
complicated than you typically see in
educational scholarship so from a
sociological perspective bordeaux
particularly talks about power and
capital and the way that structures
impact society so here's a little
explanation from the introduction and
this is on page 379 quote our
theoretical lens stem from the field of
sociology of education and as such we
see education achievement and outcome
being affected by the interplay between
school structural patterns and social
class stratifications among other
factors schools or universities are seen
as micro societies in which issues of
authority democratization role structure
and position power and dominance the
interplay between social classes their
culture language and gesture hidden
structural rules social stratification
and elitism are some of the perspectives
to understand a given problem end quote
in other words if you're going to use
bordeaux's theory as a lens to look at
something and you're likely going to
explore those things that were just kind
of listed right there now another famous
person that we talked about briefly in
an interview with roger manti is uh
foucault so foucault is another
philosopher
sociologist who has discussed similar
topics so bordeaux and foucault kind of
have some parallel scholarship that are
interesting to investigate if you are
interested in looking at the interplay
between social structures and power on
people and groups which is particularly
important if you're interested in equity
work alright so here are the research
questions for this particular study this
is from page 379 and 380. quote how can
inequalities in computer science
participation be understood by applying
sociological perspectives and
particularly purdue's theory of social
reproduction what new directions and
opportunities does the sociological
alignment offer for tackling issues and
inequalities in computer science
participation end quote alright so
here's a quote from page 380 that kind
of discusses bordeaux's theory a little
bit more quote his sociological
framework is based on the sociology of
power and it is particularly useful for
investigating how resources are
allocated in society and how a person's
internal dispositions are influenced by
society's external structures and quote
a little bit further down on that page
quote bordu argued that the education
system contributes to the reproduction
of the structure of power relationships
and symbolic relationships between
classes as such for bordeaux schools are
regarded as mechanisms for reinforcing
the social and cultural inequalities end
quote and a little bit further in quote
for purdue the social and cultural
reproduction within schools is generated
purely by the tendency to acknowledge
students who are ready to participate in
such a school system whereas due to the
school's structural refusal of inability
to discontinue this tendency and to
develop a pedagogy that considers
nothing for granted it leaves behind the
unprepared working class ordu's view of
school structure highlighted the power
that is transferred within schools by
the privileged groups in society by
doing so these groups legitimize their
dominant culture at the expense of the
less privileged groups that lack the
resources and opportunities to obtain
the legitimized cultural and social
capital end quote okay so i mentioned
this in a podcast that i did well over a
year ago that was on maker culture and
it was a critique of it and so in that
particular critique i don't remember if
they actually cited bordeaux but they
certainly could have if they didn't but
they mentioned that the maker movement
isn't anything new and in fact if
anything it is a whitewashing of
blue-collar jobs that is largely done in
communities of color and communities of
low socioeconomic status but by
rebranding it as something that high
socioeconomic status people and middle
class people can do and in particular
some of the studies that mention
that much of the imagery and media
around the maker culture involves white
males the kind of interplay between
power dynamics going on right there can
be viewed from a bordugian perspective
now another more concrete example
directly related to cs is if we think of
storytelling versus problem solving so
some cultures have a lot of high value
on storytelling while other cultures
tend to have value on problem solving
and it's not to say that you can't have
both but if we look at
what's kind of gone on in computer
science curriculum over the past decade
or so there's been a huge focus on
problem solving through like
problem-based learning and whatnot to
the point that storytelling has been
kind of put on the back burner like some
platforms and languages you can't tell
stories with them you're literally just
solving puzzles or problems now if we
look at where the funding is coming from
for some of the organizations that are
promoting that it's often coming from
well-intentioned
donors such as large tech companies who
are trying to get future engineers or
software developers or whatever now from
a bordugian perspective this can be
looked at as a dominant culture is
allocating resources to promote one way
of being one ontology that being
problem-solving or way of knowing or an
epistemology and this can be a form of
like axiological colonization or
colonization of the values that i've
mentioned in other podcasts that is
putting storytelling on the back burner
and that is not to say that it's good or
bad i'm just pointing out that this is a
way that you can look at that particular
scenario through a bordean perspective
just to give you some context for how
you might use bordus writings and for
clarification i read some of bordu's
work not all of borde's work so don't
consider myself to be a scholar of it
okay so the next section of this paper
uh starting on 380 it discusses three
different aspects of bordeaux's
sociology of education which is great
because i haven't heard it to discuss
much in cs education so if you want a
deeper dive in this check this out and
it points towards some publications that
you can dive even deeper in by actually
reading these source materials or at
least the translations of them because
bordeaux was french so if you can speak
french great if you're like me and you
cannot then you'll probably read the
translations alright so the first main
thing that they discuss in here is
bordeaux's notion of capital so from
purdue's perspective quote capital takes
time to accumulate it can be reproduced
or expanded and as a persisting force it
has the power to create possibilities or
impossibilities end quote now are there
are three types of capital that they
mention here so one of them is economic
capital so this refers to financial
resources so it could be owning land it
could be having money could be equity in
your house et cetera the next one
cultural capital this can be converted
into economic capital and it is learned
through social interaction or
socialization so this could be like
social manners like when to stand in
line and when not to stand in line or
like a queue or social manner is about
how to greet somebody or how to listen
in a conversation that's different
depending on which culture you're in so
for example should you engage in eye
contact or avoid eye contact in some
cultures one of those is considered to
be disrespectful while in other cultures
that same thing that was considered to
be disrespectful is valued or preferred
now the authors break it down into three
more distinct versions of cultural
capital so one is embodied capital the
other is objectified capital and then
the last one is institutionalized
capital here's a quote from page 380 and
those three quote embodied capital which
includes long lasting dispositions of
the mind and body and it is usually
transferred from a person to person from
a parent to child example knowledge
manners of speaking it is transferred
into an integral component of the person
into a habitus another construct and it
functions as symbolic capital this
indicates that it is not being
acknowledged as a capital but rather as
legitimate competence objectified
capital which refers to cultural goods
like books instruments machines and its
necessities and it necessitates embodied
capital to be fully valued
institutionalized capital which is a
form of objectification eg formal
qualifications in quote and then the
last one is social capital which they
kind of describe as like the social
relationships that are beneficial or
generate some kind of a good outcome or
beneficial outcome for a person so these
forms of capital are to be used as a
resource that can give you some kind of
an advantage or elevate your status
within society so for example if you are
a millionaire that might be a form of
economic capital if you have a phd that
might be a form of cultural capital and
if you are somebody who has a good
relationship with people in industry or
decision makers within a field then that
might be a form of social capital so
these are important to look at in
education to just kind of understand
some of the power at play within the
field now the next section in here is
habitus which i've also heard is habitus
but the one that i've heard most
frequently is habitus if it's wrong i
apologize here's a quote from page 381
it is considered as the way of culture
is embodied in the individual as a
system of embodied dispositions that are
the groundings of an individual's
practice and behavior end quote a little
bit further down quote habitus is
reflected in individuals as predisposed
actions that align with the social
structures they hold thus habitus is a
way of portraying the social structures
as being embodied in individuals and as
a way they understand and act in the
world this view however does not
marginalize the individual's own agency
and therefore it does not imply that
social structures are deterministic of
behavior end quote okay so a way that
you might be able to think of habitus is
it's like the habits or the dispositions
or the ways that you engage in society
that are valued and you embody those
valued forms of engagement by enacting
them and simply doing them in social
context alright so the last area that
they unpack is field so this is from
page 381 quote urdu describes the
concept of field as a social space of
interactions a space of struggle and
competition in this field individuals
are classified by the capital they
possess and that is the reason why
researchers often use the concept of
market to describe fields as it better
emphasizes the capital exchanges
individuals have diverse purchasing
capital as well as different forms of
capital which they can use to their
advantage the nature of the field
therefore is hierarchical and the
individual's classification within the
field is determined by what is valued
and valid in the field and thus
individuals with a high volume of valued
capital will hold the highest rankings
in quote here's one more quote from page
field involves the structures principles
and values of the classrooms e.g the
expected ways of behaving norms of
interactions and discourses in order to
succeed students are supposed to play
according to the rules stemming from the
field end quote alright so tying it back
to earlier so in order to succeed in the
cs class that i mentioned if it's a
curriculum that is using problem based
what's valued is solving a problem not
your ability to tell a story through
code so even if you are the best
storyteller and you can code a really
awesome project in scratch if you can't
solve a problem in a particular field
that values problem solving you would
have lower status than somebody who
could solve the problem so if you are
from a particular culture that values
problem solving great you'll do really
well in this field but if you are in a
culture that does not value problem
solving and values other forms of being
or other ways of being you will not do
as well as somebody who does value that
now from an educator standpoint we have
the different forms of capital to
consider so like the economic capital
might be how much you make as an
educator so if you work in a private
school that pays more then that might
have a higher value than a public school
that pays less from a cultural capital
standpoint if you have an edd or a phd
then you will have higher status within
the field and from a social capital if
you know people from universities or
organizations or departments of
education that can also give you some
power to be asked to join advisory
committees etc and if your habitus
aligns with a particular field then it
makes it so that you can be promoted
within that field or at least have
higher status than other educators who
do not have those forms of capital or
habitus okay so the next section talks
about the method for this particular
paper so basically they looked at 147
papers
and they tried to specifically find
cs interventions and then look at it
from a bordugian perspective to better
understand the interventions that they
engaged in and what forms of capital and
habitus and field were basically implied
or mentioned indirectly in the papers
itself so the next main section starting
on 383 kind of unpacks each of these so
on page 383 that section talks about the
different factors influencing
participation so they broke it down into
a cultural theme a social theme and a
psychological theme so from a cultural
perspective that might be having some
kind of an impact on a culture so for
example improving the views and
dispositions of computer scientists so
for example cs is largely dominated by
white males so if you are a black female
then there might be an intervention that
was developed to try and help you see a
place for yourself within a field that
is largely white males now from the
social theme that was kind of like
providing social support so like role
models or guidance like guidance
counselors and stuff to assist with the
particular intervention and then the
psychological theme was like stuff like
looking at self-efficacy and sense of
belonging within the field now 41 of the
which means 59 were in informal settings
like hackathons or competitions or
summer camps etc alright so the first
research question was quote how can any
qualities in computer science
participation be understood by applying
sociological perspectives and
particularly purdue's theory of social
reproduction end quote page 384 so
within that the first subsection is on
knowledge and skills and so this is an
intervention that improves cs knowledge
and skills in some way so for example we
designed an intervention that was going
to improve computational thinking so
they'll measure like pre and post or
something like that the next subsection
of this focused on views and
dispositions toward computer science or
scientists so like i mentioned earlier
like if you're in a marginalized group
that typically is not seen within
computer science as a field or within
media so these interventions were like
trying to improve your sense of seeing
yourself as a computer scientist or at
least somebody like you or within your
community all right so the next section
of this particular question is social
capital related to computer science and
so here's a quote from page 385 that
kind of summarizes this section quote to
develop the aforementioned skills
knowledge and particularly positive
dispositions and views toward computer
science a supportive environment and
access to computer science opportunities
are particularly important end quote so
they summarize some different studies
that kind of fall within that particular
description so if you're interested in
that i recommend checking it out the
next section is on the psychological
capital in computer science and so in
this section they mentioned that there's
some research that suggests that a field
that is familiar to someone can be
accompanied by positive feelings such as
ease and comfort whereas if a field is
unfamiliar to a person then it can be
accompanied by shame fear anxiety or
indignation that paraphrase is from page
cultural capital and habitus and exist
within a field in their home life that
values cs then they will likely approach
it and
find psychological rewards for
participating in it but if we have
cultures that do not then it's going to
have potentially a negative
psychological impact on students so
might instead create a disdain for cs or
something like that so if you're
interested in hearing more about the
studies for that check out that summary
on page 386. also on that same page is
the next section on interventions and so
there were some different types of
interventions so improving knowledge and
skills or the dispositions or broadening
participation and focusing on like
self-efficacy and sense of belonging or
even building some social spaces where
mentors and teachers could kind of get
together to provide some support for
students or even their peers can provide
support for each other if you want to
see studies that talk about that check
out the citations on 386 and 387 and
then on 387 there's a section on
computer science capital habitus and its
impact on participation so i'm going to
read the final paragraph of this
particular section quote overall the
central theme that is highlighted here
is that although there is a vast amount
of papers that aimed to address
inequalities in participation with
indeed significant contributions
inequalities continue reproducing until
today until this point and by focusing
on bordeaux's notion of capital
inhabitees we have identified two
potential reasons first most of the
interventions focus on some of the
components of computer science capital
instead of considering it as the
combination of four aspects cultural
capital as reflected on students
knowledge and skills and views and
dispositions and social and
psychological capital secondly most of
the interventions implemented in
extracurricular activities which means
that the reported positive changes on
students capital and particularly on
students habitus reflect a particular
point in time rather than long-term
benefits when students return to formal
educational settings the misfits between
the habitus and the structure of the
field might cause an inner conflict that
students may be unable to handle
therefore the structure of the field is
equally important when we consider the
issue of participation but it seems not
to have been the focus of studies in
computer science education and thus the
next section focuses explicitly on
highlighting its importance and the new
research directions stemming from this
end quote so the next section of the
paper talks about the second research
question which was quote what new
directions and opportunities does
bordugi and lens offer for tackling
issues and inequalities in computer
science participation end quote page 387
so the first section of this is
discussing capital and habitus are not
enough all right so i'm going to read
for you two quotes from page 388 that
kind of summarizes quote we believe that
the structure of school and university
computer science fields is likely to
legitimize specific forms of capital not
necessarily depicted in the literature
and thus favors the students who already
possess this capital while unconsciously
rejects other capital forms and
habituses that do not align with its
structure end quote a little bit further
down quote while research has focused on
investigating how the content can be
more interesting for all students and
meaningful by creating engaging context
and on educating the teachers on
inequalities issues while enhancing
their pedagogical content knowledge and
creating culturally relevant instruction
less attention has been given to the
underlying rules of participation what
exactly constitutes valid legitimate
participation in computer science how
the structural positions of its agents
are formed and claimed and who
determines the rules of the game and
gives the power of the agents to sustain
these rules end quote okay so let's
unpack that a little bit so one way that
you can look at this is they mention a
lot of studies look at like pedagogy
approaches that help improve
understanding of computational thinking
or something along those lines and you
focus on what occurs within the
classroom space so like what the teacher
is doing different types of approaches
there or how these students are engaging
so are you going to code with one
language or a different language or a
different platform et cetera while these
studies are useful the authors might
argue from a bardugian perspective you
might zoom out a bit and look at some of
the structural inequalities that might
exist within that so for example is your
class going to be offered as a mandatory
class or is it offered as an elective or
is it offered as something that only a
select set of students will participate
in so for example the gifted and
talented programs which is a term that i
don't like some other schools will call
it the honors kids other things to
consider is will students have access to
devices both within the school and
outside of school and if so how
frequently what about internet so if
kids have access to devices at home but
they don't have internet how does that
create forms of inequalities compared to
the students who do have access to
devices at home zooming out even further
which schools within the district have
the opportunity to do this which
districts have the opportunity to do
this what standards are being reinforced
or introduced within schools that are
either mandated or voluntarily directed
by department of education or by like
csta's national standards and who are
the people who make those decisions is
it donors from corporate influence so if
you have a district that is supported by
a local corporation do they get to have
a say on what students learn and how
these are the kind of questions and
things to consider from a bordugian
perspective that often is not discussed
from a specific intervention so if
you're a researcher great take a look at
bordeaux zoom out a bit take a look at
some of these structural inequalities
that might be impacting students yeah
you may have created the best summer
program ever when they go back to their
classroom there are still going to be
some inequalities that need to be
addressed that aren't addressed by the
intervention that you designed from a
teacher perspective try and consider not
just what you are doing in the classroom
but how students are able to continue
their engagement and their learning
outside of the classroom what factors
are preventing students from continuing
their learning outside of school what's
something that you can do about it what
kind of committee can you form to do
something about this etc alright so the
next section that answers the second
research question basically argues that
we need to have a more rigorous
discussion around inequalities so if we
think of from like a paulo ferreri
perspective pedagogy the oppressed the
dominant and the subdominant class or
the dominant and the dominated this
particular section kind of unpacks this
that concept from a bordugian's
perspective so this is from page 388 so
here's a quote quote the dominant class
consists of students with higher levels
of capital it is the class that
possesses the right amount of capital to
leverage within the field and therefore
have the advantage over students of the
subordinate class because the former
joins the field with the necessary
resources to succeed and position
themselves higher in the hierarchy in
computer science fields this group
consists of students with a good
background of knowledge and or skills
related to computer science and thus the
course content appears familiar to them
these students share a common language
and discourse related to computer
science a specific style of
communication and interaction with their
peers of the same position and with
their teachers a code of interaction
relevant to computer science and
accessible to those with high computer
science capital and positive views and
dispositions towards the discipline
habitus that aligns with their future
goals the subordinate class consists of
students that do not possess the capital
to negotiate their positions within the
field this group is further divided into
those who are interested in weakening
the symbolic order and those who go
through a form of symbolic violence
discussed below lodged in the habitus in
quote so on page 389 here's a quote that
talks about symbolic violence a little
bit more quote symbolic violence
indicates a gradual acceptance and
internalization of ideas and structures
that tend to subordinate certain groups
of people and because of its
invisibility constitutes an effective
tool of silent domination and silencing
dominated end quote so going back to the
problem based versus story based a form
of symbolic violence might be hey we
value problem based this is the platform
we're using it only does problem-based
learning we don't have the opportunity
to engage in storytelling you need to
learn how to engage in computer science
in our way rather than try and approach
it from something that you
would prefer or more familiar with
that's an example of symbolic violence
it's saying our way is the right way to
do this and you need to assimilate to us
rather than engage in computer science
from like a multi-perspective list
approach where kids can explore cs
through many different paths or venues
for example in my class kids had
opportunities to work on several
different languages and platforms that
they got to choose and within those
platforms they could work on projects
that were interesting to them rather
than mandating everybody engaged in the
same project the same way that would be
described as a form of symbolic violence
or at least could be if you use a
bordugian perspective here's the final
quote from page 389 in this particular
section quote all in all for the
dominated group to be heard and be part
of the game it is not enough to just
permit them to speak nor to increase
their capital alone nor to introduce
content familiar to their culture while
sustaining a pathologized field but
rather systemic and cultural changes
should be implemented to a court agency
in this group structuring the field
narrowly and creating and reproducing
limited definitions of what it means to
be engaged and participate in computer
science what it means to be a computer
science student or scientist reproduces
disadvancements particularly for
students whose habituates seem not to
align with the field end quote alright
so the paper ends with the discussion on
some of the gaps in research and future
directions and some suggestions so
basically if i were to summarize those
couple pages into a short paragraph and
say that the authors argue that yes we
should take a look at the interventions
that are like on pedagogy and like how
students learn and things like that but
we also if we want to have systemic and
long-lasting change we need to look at
the structures that are influencing
participation in order to better
understand how we can have a larger
impact so instead of using a microscope
to investigate an
intervention we could instead look from
a kaleidoscope or multi-perspective list
approach that looks at systemic changes
over time rather than one-off
implementations or interventions all
right so that's kind of a summary of the
paper itself which i do highly recommend
reading it is denser than other cs
education
research out there but i highly
recommend it and it includes a lot of
citations to other publications that
dive deeper into this particular topic
so each one of these unpacking
scholarship episodes i'd like to share
some of my lingering questions or
thoughts this one's going to be a little
bit different so i have a question for
you and so the question is what do you
want to learn more about this topic or
other topics in cs education so you can
respond to this by hitting the contact
me button at jaredaler.com or you can
comment in the website by going to the
bottom of the show notes and then
respond there or you can send me a
message on twitter or something which i
only check about once a week so i
apologize if i don't respond right away
but i genuinely want to know what you
are more interested in what topics i
should dive deeper on some of the
unpacking scholarship episodes and
interviews that i've done have been more
undergraduate level discussions
introducing a particular topic while
others have dove deeper so more of a
graduate student version of discussing
like equity or gender
or power dynamics or whatever i'm trying
to provide some kind of a balance
between breadth and depth but i'm
curious what topics you would like to
hear more about in particular for me to
dive deeper on now the next couple of
weeks are going to be podcasts related
to national suicide prevention month and
awareness next week's episode is a
repeat of an episode that i did the
previous year it is the most important
episode i've ever recorded as it can
literally save some lives if you dive
deeper into learning more about
depression and suicide ideation in
education and then the following episode
is a super cut of the guests over this
past year talking about how they prevent
burnout and then following those two
particular episodes we will resume doing
some interviews and some unpacking
scholarship episodes so please stay
tuned for those particular episodes and
until then i hope you are having a
wonderful week and are staying safe
Article
Kallia, M., & Cutts, Q. (2021). Re-examining Inequalities in Computer Science Participation from a Bourdieusian Sociological Perspective. International Computing Education Research (ICER), 379–392.
Abstract
“Concerns about participation in computer science at all levels of education continue to rise, despite the substantial efforts of research, policy, and world-wide education initiatives. In this paper, which is guided by a systematic literature review, we investigate the issue of inequalities in participation by bringing a theoretical lens from the sociology of education, and particularly, Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction. By paying particular attention to Bourdieu’s theorising of capital, habitus, and field, we first establish an alignment between Bourdieu’s theory and what is known about inequalities in computer science (CS) participation; we demonstrate how the factors affecting participation constitute capital forms that individuals possess to leverage within the computer science field, while students’ views and dispositions towards computer science and scientists are rooted in their habitus which influences their successful assimilation in computer science fields. Subsequently, by projecting the issue of inequalities in CS participation to Bourdieu’s sociological theorisations, we explain that because most interventions do not consider the issue holistically and not in formal education settings, the reported benefits do not continue in the long-term which reproduces the problem. Most interventions have indeed contributed significantly to the issue, but they have either focused on developing some aspects of computer science capital or on designing activities that, although inclusive in terms of their content and context, attempt to re-construct students’ habitus to “fit” in the already “pathologized” computer science fields. Therefore, we argue that to contribute significantly to the equity and participation issue in computer science, research and interventions should focus on restructuring the computer science field and the rules of participation, as well as on building holistically students’ computer science capital and habitus within computer science fields.”
Author Keywords
Inequalities, sociology, computing education, Bourdieu, computer science, capital
My One Sentence Summary
This paper uses Bourdieu’s discussions of capital, habitus, and field to analyze 147 publications on CS interventions.
Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts
What do you want to learn more about on this topic or other topics in CS education?
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
Considering Leisure in Education with Roger Mantie
In this interview with Roger Mantie, we discuss the importance of leisure for self preservation, problematize the single focus of education for workforce readiness, discuss the importance of focusing on happiness and wellbeing, explore discourse in education and around leisure, and much more.
Culturally Responsive-sustaining Computer Science Education: A Framework
In this episode I unpack the Kapor Center’s (2021) publication titled “Culturally responsive-sustaining computer science education: A framework,” which describes multiple courses of action for six core components of culturally responsive-sustaining CS education.
Decolonizing Education through SEL and PBL with Matinga Ragatz
In this interview with Matinga Ragatz, we discuss Matinga’s journey into education, creating environments where kids can learn through struggle, the importance of social and emotional learning (SEL), how schools promote individualism and exceptionalism, the intersections of project-based learning and SEL, decolonizing education, the importance of shared values in education, and so much more.
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 Cultural Capital with Kimberly Scott
In this interview with Kimberly Scott, we discuss some of the problems with discourse around grit, students as techno-social change agents, teaching with culturally responsive approaches in communities that are hostile toward culturally responsive pedagogies, unpacking discourse and Discourse, considering both present and future identities when teaching, potential disconnects between theory and practice with intersectional work, comforting the disturbed and disturbing the comforted, and so much more.
Liberatory Computing Education for African American Students
In this episode I unpack Walker, Sherif, and Breazeal’s (2022) publication titled “Liberatory computing education for African American students,” which unpacks and situates the five pillars of the liberation framework proposed by El-Amin within data activism modules.
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.
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).
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
This episode is the start of a miniseries that unpacks Paulo Freire’s (1970) book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” This particular episode unpacks chapter 1, which discusses how oppressors maintain control over the oppressed. Following unpacking scholarship episodes discuss what this looks like in education and how educators can adopt a “pedagogy of the oppressed” to break cycles of oppression.
This episode is episode two of a miniseries that unpacks Paulo Freire’s (1970) book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” This particular episode unpacks chapter 2, which discusses the “banking” approach to education that assumes students are repositories of information, and then proposes a liberatory approach to education that focuses on posing problems that students and teachers collaboratively solve. If you haven’t listened to the discussion on the first chapter, click here.
This episode is episode three of a miniseries that unpacks Paulo Freire’s (1970) book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” This particular episode unpacks chapter 3, which discusses the importance of dialogue when engaging in liberatory practices. This episode builds off the previous unpacking scholarship episodes on chapter one and chapter two, so make sure you listen to those episodes before jumping in here.
This episode is the final episode of a miniseries that unpacks Paulo Freire’s (1970) book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” This particular episode unpacks chapter 4, which synthesizes the concepts introduced in the previous chapters and discusses the difference between anti-dialogical and dialogical practices in education (and at large). This episode builds off the previous unpacking scholarship episodes on chapter one, chapter two, and chapter three so make sure you listen to those episodes before jumping in here.
Racial Justice Amidst the Dangers of Computing Creep: A Dialogue
In this episode I unpack Shah and Yadav’s (2023) publication titled “Racial justice amidst the dangers of computer creep: A dialogue,” which presents a dialogue that problematizes issues around racial justice in computing education.
The Shire as Metaphor for Systemic Racism with Joyce McCall
In this interview with Joyce McCall, we unpack and problematize some of the issues around race and racism in relation to education. In particular, we discuss the importance of allies not only showing up to support marginalized or oppressed groups, but staying when conversations get uncomfortable; the Shire from the Lord of the Rings as a metaphor for hegemony and systemic racism; as well as a variety of theories such as critical race theory, double consciousness, cultural capital; and much more.
In this episode I unpack Coppola’s (2021) publication titled “What if Freire had Facebook? A critical interrogation of social media woke culture among privileged voices in music education discourse,” which summarizes Paulo Freire’s works and hypothesizes how Freire may have responded to some forms of woke culture.
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
Free CS Resources I Have Created
More Content
