Listen and learn: Research paper Research papers are a pairing of two 18 minute presentations followed by 18 minutes of Discussion led by a Discussant, with remaining time for Q & A.
This is presentation 1 of 2, scroll down to see more details.
Other presentations in this group:
This study is informed by Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) that has been adapted into computer science education as Culturally Responsive Computing (CRC). CRC seeks to support digital technology innovation among learners from underserved groups by empowering them to take a transformational stance towards technology creation and innovation by drawing from their socio-culturally diverse context (Scott et al., 2015). Culturally Responsive Computing offers a new theory that relentlessly works against accepting current computing educational practices as distinct & separate from political, social, and cultural underpinnings of their students and the social world (Hooks, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995). As a pedagogical approach, CRC calls for creating learning opportunities that entail framing academic goals around identity issues, social empowerment, deeper understanding of heritage and appreciation for cultural diversity, and embedding these perspectives into students learning experiences (Eglash, Benett, O’Donnell, Jennings, & Cintorino, 2006; Scott et al., 2015). Drawing on from Scott et al. (2015) work that outlined the key tenets of CRC, this study advocates CS faculty to make their pedagogies and curriculum culturally responsive as a way to include everyone’s voices in the creation of technologies (Conole, Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2014).
Participant Selection.
In this study, I interviewed computer science faculty who had attained a Ph.D. degree in a Computing discipline (e.g., Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Information Systems, and Human-Computer Interaction) and who taught in a Computer Science department at a college or university. I started my participant search by contacting CS faculty employed at Research-1 institutions and contacting faculty who were acquaintances of my advisor. In total, I contacted 100 computer science faculty from R-1 institutions and acquaintances of my advisor. I used the U.S. News computer science and engineering program rankings and contacted faculty from top-10 R-1 universities. These 10 universities were spread across the United States. Two contacts of my advisors who agreed to participate were faculty at teaching-focused institutions. Overall, I conducted a nationwide search to recruit participants for my study.
Data Saturation.
The total number of participants was determined by data saturation, that is, data collection and analysis were carried out in tandem, and data was continued to be collected until no new information or themes were observed in the data (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013; Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Therefore, I stopped my data collection at first eight respondents who fulfilled the requirements of the dissertation study and after which no new themes and codes appeared in the data, which is a reasonable sample size.
Interviews.
Participants described their educational and teaching timelines in U.S. Computer Science Education, from their undergraduate degrees to being a faculty, as if they were life chapters in a book or a novel. During the interview, participants reflected on two vignettes describing scenarios where a hypothetical situation illustrated how CS faculty can use CRC in their classroom (Appendix A). These scenarios were sent to the participants a week before the interview. In addition to these scenarios, participants also shared their views and understanding of culturally responsive computing and its relevance or lack thereof in teaching computer science courses. Furthermore, the interviews attempted to delve into faculty’s perceptions on equity and diversity in computer science education and if they thought CRC could provide more equitable opportunities to students from disenfranchised groups.
The first scenario was based on an assignment developed collaboratively by two CS faculty at a well-know technical university located in Western United States. The goal of this assignment was for students to use C++ to generate their unique embroidery patterns and patches using an embroidery machine. The students were also provided readings at the end of this assignment; however, there were no questions or grades related to the readings. To help understand, faculty’s beliefs on the use of such an assignment in a CS course they teach, I asked them 5 questions (Appendix A).
The second scenario was based on an assignment developed by me based on my experience as a critical computer science engineer and educator and my understanding of how culturally responsive assignments can be designed and developed for a CS course. The professor in this hypothetical scenario was a Hispanic female computer science faculty teaching a web application development course. The goal of the assignment was for students to design a web-development tool that would allow residents to find clean drinkable water nearby and see where the water in their community was contaminated.
In addition to these scenarios, I defined and explained culturally responsive computing for participants briefly and asked them eight questions broadly related to implementing and using culturally responsive computing in their courses, how they could better support historically disenfranchised students and women in their universities/colleges, what teaching approaches other than culturally responsive computing can be used in retaining student interest and including their cultural experiences in CS courses, what resources existed at their university to integrate equitable teaching practices in their courses, and what role do pedagogical practices play in increasing diversity and equity in undergraduate computer science programs.
Data Analysis.
This study used a thematic analysis to understand faculty’s notions on the use of culturally responsive computing in their CS classrooms (Braun & Clarke, 2006). It reflected on the interview responses of participants on including cultural and ethnic identity of their participants in their curricula and classroom discourse (Appendix A).
Repeatedly four faculty showed resistance to pursuing race centered conversations in their courses and incorporating culturally responsive assignments that are not a “common denominator” for all students. For instance, Juan suggested that “You have to be as neutral as well.” in referring to a culturally responsive assignment in the interview vignettes. They elaborate,
So yeah, doesn't need to be for marginalized students can be some common denominator for everybody. Right. And the problem when you choose one project that is for one segment then what about everybody else? Like, for example, in the first scenario that you were showing of embroidery. Okay. That can be good for one segment of the students. Right. But what about what about everybody else. You have to be as neutral as well. You have to have a common denominator. You need to pull everybody right that is your responsibility, not only a few. OK, so the goal of the professor is to actually get you to increase the knowledge of everybody right not only a group. That doesn't need to be one on the top doesn't need to be one at the bottom, it needs to be everybody.
Liu suggested that such assignments can have “political implications on the university. So, you have to be careful.” They said, “For example, you informed students that the water is contaminated in their community has many implications. Right, now, there can be political implications and that can be implications that have an impact on the university. So, you have to be careful.”
On the other hand, faculty like Alan also showed an empathetic and humanistic way of engaging with students of color. They explained citing an event,
So, for example, just this morning. I have this student [African American female] who had messaged me about a question on the final exam. It's a take-home problem, right. So we went back and forth. And finally, I'm like, do you have a minute to talk about this. And so we talk for 10 minutes. Well, just a voice call over the internet. She's like, I'm a resident advisor, which means she deals with the dorm. And there are all these issues going on and we're asked to go through and search all the student apartments for something. Anyway, so there's this thing that's going on and she has two other finals tomorrow, but on Wednesday and tomorrow, she's going to present the final exam to me. You want to just do this on Thursday. And she's like, let's do it tomorrow. I'm like, well I don't care if you do it on Thursday. And she's like, really? But I think willing as an instructor to be aware of students needs and situations outside of just their homework record that would allow you to do that, and they know that you see them as a human being.
These suggestions from faculty may arise from an understanding that computer science is a culture-neutral non-political discipline hence it is not relevant to base assignments around socio-cultural and/or political issues in CS courses. Like Alan, other CS faculty too need to embrace and empower their students to be active agents of political change rather than shy away from discussing socio-cultural and political issues. Neutrality in the design of curriculum and focus on using a politically neutral language reinforces white heteronormative ideologies that conceal unequal power relationships that essentially shape the cultural identities of historically disenfranchised students. Faculty need to embrace and empower their students to be active agents of political change rather than shy away from discussing political issues.
Neutrality” in curriculum design was evident in participant responses suggesting a positionality that computer science is a culture-neutral, nonsocial realm where faculty focus on how not to make the dominant group (white students) uncomfortable by choosing to discuss racial issues rather than making historically disenfranchised students feel supported, respected, and welcome in these spaces. Haynes and Patton (2019) argue for a White Racial Consciousness and Faculty behavior model that they show can help teach and engage White faculty, who fail to see connections between CS content, teaching, and racial justice, in culturally relevant professional development. It is important to note that faculty like Juan indicated being more comfortable pursuing less or non-political topics in their CS courses. This further resounds the important role that a CRC pedagogy to systemically impact local political change can have on some faculty who may need to unlearn some of the neoliberal white ideologies that governed their Ph.D. training (Scott et al., 2015).
My work indicated a need for self-sustaining faculty professional development (PD) that goes beyond training faculty on DEI issues. A PD that educates faculty how to form local sustainable and respectful community-based partnerships and to adapt CRC into these courses. This work questions and pushes university leaders to invest resources in training CS faculty who receive no professional training in applying teaching and learning theories to their teaching and creating explicit culturally responsive curriculum for Black, Latinx, & Indigenous (Eglash & Benett, 2009). A self-sustaining PD means that faculty come to view their peers as a support system allowing them to create a community that is willing to learn from and support each other in learning about culturally responsive ways of teaching in CS courses. Drawing from Lave and Wenger’s (1999) communities of practice, this work points towards CS faculty forming communities of practice that engage in a shared process of understanding culturally responsive computing pedagogy (a shared domain of interest) and how they can implement it in teaching CS courses. It also means that faculty collaboratively work towards questioning and actively reforming their conscious and unconscious raced-gendered biases and stereotypes that prevent them from adopting a culturally responsive pedagogical approach in teaching CS courses. Working as a cohesive group CS faculty can build mutually beneficial community partnerships that are sustainable beyond one-class activities. As expressed by faculty in this study, forming community connections is an exhausting task that demands time, effort, and institutional support. As such developing long-term sustainable community partnerships that benefit the community as well as faculty will require fewer resources in the long run. It is important to acknowledge that tensions arise when trying to develop these partnerships within an existing system that does not always reward them. This is especially true of research intensive institutions that prioritize research over teaching and lack necessary support and structures for faculty to pursue culturally-based pedagogy.
However, it is still important that faculty push for reforms that prioritize pedagogical approaches, such as CRC to recruit and retain historically disenfranchised students. Hence faculty need institutional and departmental support that allows them the time and space to develop community connections and design a culturally responsive CS curriculum. At the institutional level, this means that departments need to have dedicated staff who specialize in reaching out to local community organizations and connecting them to CS faculty. Such institutional support can save faculty time and effort that they could then dedicate towards designing CRC approaches within their courses and connect their students to community partners.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Eglash, R., & Bennett, A. (2009). Teaching with Hidden Capital : Agency in Children’s Computational Explorations of Cornrow Hairstyles. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 58–73.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Haynes, C., & Patton, L. D. (2019). From racial resistance to racial consciousness: Engaging White STEM faculty in pedagogical transformation. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 22(2), 85-98.
King GP, Russo-Tait T, Andrews TC. Evading Race: STEM Faculty Struggle to Acknowledge Racialized Classroom Events. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2023 Mar;22(1):ar14. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-06-0104. PMID: 36735542.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of computer information systems, 54(1), 11-22.
Sax, L. J., Blaney, J. M., Lehman, K. J., Rodriguez, S. L., George, K. L., & Zavala, C. (2018). Sense of Belonging in Computing : The Role of Introductory Courses for Women and Underrepresented Minority Students. Social Sciences, 7(122). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080122
Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: a theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.924966
Return
Trips and Tours