CSforWhat? A Framework for Democratic Deliberation Around Values Driving Computer Science Education Practice

• In Event: Who Has a "Seat at the Table"? Equity in Decision Making About Computer Science Education

Abstract

Why should students learn computer science (CS)? In 2016, as CS for All initiatives gained momentum, researchers and practitioners collaboratively developed a framework to answer this question (Authors, 2017), driven by concerns that policy talk around workforce development was drowning out other purposes for CS education. The CS Visions Framework posited seven core values that stakeholder rationales tended to index—economic and workforce development, equity and social justice, competencies and literacies, citizenship and civic empowerment, technological, scientific and social innovation, school improvement and reform, and personal agency, joy and fulfillment.

Since then, the Framework has been used not just to “decode” arguments people make for CS for All, but has also been used by schools, districts, and other stakeholders to help them set their own, community-defined visions for CS education (DeLyser & Wright, 2019). Using the Framework in these ways heeds calls for democratic participation in education as far back as John Dewey’s day: he emphasized having a strong philosophy for educational projects lest they be “at the mercy of every intellectual breeze that happens to blow” (1938). Research on policy implementation points to the critical role that articulated values and goals play within school change efforts (Cobb et al., 2018), and the importance of including the voices of school community members (especially teachers) in defining those goals (Forman, Stosich, & Bocala, 2017), offering practical perspectives on the need for such deliberation within CSed.

Presenters will describe studies of two uses of the Framework that deepen understandings of the linkages between stakeholder voices, values and practice in Csed:

(1) During a participatory-knowledge building activity (Author 1, 2017) practitioners identified Csed programs and curricula they saw as linked to particular values. Informed by their examples, the authors developed cases linking axiological orientations to pedagogical designs (Bang et al., 2016), highlighting how different values result in distinctive approaches to teaching and learning. For instance, programs valuing access for under-represented groups to computing fields provided mentors coming from similar backgrounds as students, whereas Csed programs promoting civic participation provided students with access to open data sets so they could create projects related to neighborhood issues.

(2) Based on a long-term study of district planning and implementation of Csed initiatives (see Author 1, 2019), Author 1 analyzed qualitative data showing that stakeholders not only used the Framework to support surfacing values that would drive their initiatives, but even more frequently adapted it as a tool to build understanding and promote buy-in among district stakeholders.

These projects demonstrate the Framework’s potential to promote inclusive, reflexive and values-based decision-making for CS education at all levels. We believe this kind of process is more likely to yield initiatives that are more rigorous and equitable. Future research is needed regarding how to ensure members from different backgrounds and positions within a diverse community are meaningfully included in these deliberations. This way, stakeholders can better attend to blind-spots, ward off provincialism, and question implicit assumptions about what is possible, leading to models that are ultimately more inclusive and expansive.

Authors

• Rafi Santo, Telos Learning

• Sara Vogel, New York University

• Dixie Ching, New York University