Search

This introduction welcomes readers to the second volume of an ACM TOCE special issue on justice-centered computing education. Here we reflect on the ways both the first volume and this current volume expand our notions of justice. More specifically, the first volume explored topics such as intersectionality, transformational justice, intercultural computing, ethnocomputing, translanguaging, socially responsible computing, and institutional theory. This volume continues the conversation with its focus on decolonization, racial literacy with white computing educators, youth agency and voice in computing and media production, learning pathways focused on justice issues for a rural Mexican American youth, and Universal Design for Learning in CS education. We end with discussing the important issues, topics, and voices that are missing from these two volumes, and potential future directions for dialogue in our community.

The ideas we offer below for considering justice-centered computing education point to a broad array of problem-spaces, contexts, and communities that scholars, educators, technologists, and activists might engage with. In exploring and deepening the conversation around this project, the seven articles included in the first volume of this special issue employ diverse theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and frameworks, including but not limited to intersectionality, transformational justice, intercultural computing, ethnocomputing, translanguaging, socially responsible computing, and institutional theory. Across them, rather than consensus on a narrow set of issues, we see the possibilities of a pluralistic and wide-ranging conversation about how we might constitute the meanings of “justice-centered” within computing education, the tools that might be used to produce such meanings, and the actions that might address them.

As districts across the United States move to implement comprehensive computer science education (CSed) initiatives, there is increasing interest in utilizing data-informed strategies such as continuous improvement to address systemic inequities. However, the specifics of how education institutions move from collecting and monitoring data into processes of systems improvement are not straightforward. This study explores the critical intermediary step of diagnostic problem framing which connects the collection of data to the identification of root causes of inequities so that adequate action can be taken to change an instructional system. Without taking the step of diagnostic problem framing, district leaders run the risk of using data to change systems in ways that simply reproduce or worsen existing inequities. Through four cases from three school districts implementing comprehensive (e.g. K12, at scale) CSed initiatives, we explore the dynamics of diagnostic problem framing around each of the four phenomena related to equitable CSed as specified in the CAPE framework: system and teacher capacity around CSed, student access to CS learning, participation rates in those opportunities by subgroups, and the quality of the experience of those participating. Our findings highlight five factors mediating diagnostic problem framing: conceptualization of equity as a multifaceted phenomenon, problem attribution to systems, not students, ability to analyze data for indicators of inequities, knowledge of local instructional systems, and embeddedness in instructional networks. Our results affirm the importance of developing robust data systems in CSed initiatives, but also show how attention to broader institutional factors can improve the capacity of these systems to address inequities.

Purpose This article makes the case that the education community can learn from professional learning and innovation practices, collectively called “Working in the Open” (or “Working Open”), that have roots in the free/open source software (F/OSS) movement. These practices focus on values of transparency, collaboration and sharing within communities of experimentation. This paper aims to argues that Working Open offers a compelling approach to fostering distributed educational professional networks that focus on co-constructing new projects and best practices. Design/methodology/approach Insights presented here are based on three sources: expert perspectives on open source work practices gleaned through interviews and blog posts, a qualitative case analysis of a collaborative project enacted by a group of informal learning organizations within the Hive NYC Learning Network, a community of over 70 youth-facing organizations in New York City, as well as an overview of that network’s participation structures, and, finally, knowledge-building activities and discussions held within the Hive NYC community about the topic in situ. From these sources, the authors derived general principles to guide open work approaches. Findings The authors identify five practices deemed as central to Working Open: public storytelling and context setting, enabling community contribution, rapid prototyping “in the wild”, public reflection and documentation and, lastly, creating remixable work products. The authors describe these practices, show how they are enacted in situ, outline ways that Hive NYC stewards promote a Working Open organizational ecosystem and conclude with recommendations for utilizing a Working Open approach. Originality/value Drawing from the F/OSS movement, this article builds on standard practices of professional learning communities to provide an approach that focuses on pushing forward innovation and changes in practice as opposed to solely sharing reflections or observing practices.

Purpose This article makes a case for the importance of brokering future learning opportunities to youth as a programmatic goal for informal learning organizations. Such brokering entails engaging in practices that connect youth to events, programs, internships, individuals and institutions related to their interests to support them beyond the window of a specific program or event. Brokering is especially critical for youth who are new to an area of interest: it helps them develop both a baseline understanding of the information landscape and a social network that will respond to their needs as they pursue various goals. The paper aims to describe three critical levers for brokering well in informal settings: creating learning environments that allow trust to form between youth and educators and enable educators to develop an understanding of a young person’s interests, needs and goals; attending to a young person’s tendency (or not) to reach out to educators after a program is over to solicit assistance; and enabling potential brokers to efficiently locate appropriate future learning opportunities for each young person who approaches them. The authors also include a set of program practices for providers who wish to increase their brokering impact, as well as recommendations geared primarily toward organization leaders. The authors hope that this paper brings clarity and enhanced significance to the practice of brokering as a strategy to support youth pathways toward meaningful futures. Design/methodology/approach Insights presented here are the result of a participatory knowledge building and sharing process with a community of after-school providers known as the Mozilla Hive NYC Learning Network. The topic of discussion was how these providers might continue to support young people in their intensive project-based programs after the program was over. The authors of this article, acting as embedded research partners to Hive NYC, contributed insights to these discussions based on ethnographic fieldwork and case studies of high-school-age youth in the Hive NYC context. Findings The authors articulate a set of brokering practices and a conceptual model that communicates how brokering might lead to valued long-term outcomes for youth, including increased social capital. Originality/value The intent is that information and perspectives from this article will inform youth-serving practice and serve as a catalyst for further conversations and activities geared toward promoting youth pathways of learning and identity development.