equity – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies

Week 9 Response

mwill5 — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 07:25:35 +0000

“Stuck in the Shallow End (2008) reveals how these beliefs about a narrow strata of students having “high potential” in computer science is laden with racial, gender, socioeconomic biases and plays out in schools through tracking, course assignments, course availability, and instructional resources [12]. As explained by educational researcher Carol Dweck, this type of evaluation of students is the result of a “fixed mindset”—a static view of intelligence that negatively impacts teachers’ assessment and attitudes towards students, as well as students’ performance in school [6]. Instead, increasing diversity requires a “growth” mindset, which centers on a belief that all students with quality education can grow in their capacity and engagement. Our mission is to build talent, to assure that all students have access to equitable and engaging computer science knowledge.” (Margolis et al., 2015)

The way Margolis et al. uses fixed mindset on teachers in the above quote is both provocative and challenging. The focus on professional development and common sense measures, like moving from AP CS to a scaffolded curriculum, is a really powerful way of shifting the conversation away from descriptions of student failure toward improving the learning environment. This article struck me as quite radical for that framing, and I hope we get a chance to discuss it in class.

Week 9 Thu Ngo

thungo — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:21:35 +0000

The Margolis reading was an exciting read for me as it mentioned the flowering of computer science as a field of study. It reminded me of when CS was a very unpopular and even stigmatized field. It was also exciting to see that a program such as ECS was in place and that it was working to bring about equity. The article also mentioned that there was a shift in interest within female students which was awesome to hear.

One aspect that the article brought up was finding metrics to measure success. It made me realize that when it comes to equity you have to not only find create a program that works but also find out to how to measure the effectiveness.

A question I had while reading, though, was if there were programs simlar to this but focused on different subjects such as history or psychology. Would a program such as ECS pigeon hold disadvantaged students into CS since no such programs exist for other subjects?

Week 5 Post – For whom and In What Context

heylisa — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:41:18 +0000

What is most interesting about the Squire reading was the line: “As videogames mature as a medium, the question becomes not whether they will be used for learning but for whom and in what contexts” (p. 27).

The ‘for whom’ part raises a lot of questions around equity. Who will have access to the latest and greatest game technology? Knowing that technology usually starts high end down and trickles down, should we expect that only students in developed countries, in the top income bracket, will have access? And if that is not what we hope to see, then what can we do about it? Does that responsibility fall on the government to set policies around it? Parents / teachers to demand it? Designers to acknowledge and build for wider access?

The ‘in what context’ is also interesting. I was really struck by the line: “As designed cultures, persistent world games function more like digital nations than like traditional games, making them intriguing sites for studying how people reciprocally inhabit and create culture (p. 23)” While observing such environments can be like a laboratory for how societies function, designers also have a role to play in shaping what kind of world they want to see. That is both powerful and daunting for designers. If the only context that exists today are videogames designed by private enterprises and the military, then parents and teachers should be asking themselves what kind of context they want their students exposed to.