Learning Landscaping: A Sociotechnical Process Toward Healthier Learning Ecosystems (Poster 2)

• In Event: Advancing Understanding of Infrastructuring in the Learning Sciences

Abstract

Background
Out-of-school time (OST) is critical for learning and development (Falk et al., 2007). To support equity in OST opportunities and acknowledge historical systematic disinvestment in communities of color (e.g., Riley, 2018) there is an opportunity for work beyond the level of a program and toward the infrastructure of the city in which programming happens. In this poster, we share a macro level infrastructuring approach toward healthy learning ecosystems.
Our work considers learning as a social and dynamic process that happens across spaces and over time (Barron, 2006). Freedom of movement for all learners within this learning ecosystem requires connections between stakeholders (e.g, youth, families, educators, civic leaders), hard infrastructure (e.g, schools, parks and libraries, transportation), soft infrastructure (e.g., learning expectations, OST opportunities), and information infrastructure (e.g, data collection and integration, visualizations) that are fluid, varied, and transparent (Authors, 2019).

Methods
The Cities Learn platform is a citywide portal that allows OST organizations to upload program opportunities and families to search by content and neighborhood. Geocoded metadata links programs to Census tracts and community boundaries. Hard infrastructure is documented through Cities Learn data about where programs happen and integrated with teen-collected open data identifying community organizations that serve youth and families. Facilities within these sites (e.g. makerspace, industrial kitchen, hangout spaces) are identified through an OST landscape survey. Soft infrastructure is documented through Cities Learn data about who is offering programs, what programs are offered (timing, content), and supports (transportation vouchers, cost, food). Additional organizational assets (e.g., learning goals, ecosystem partnerships) are gathered through the survey. Together, this rich information infrastructure enables the creation of visualizations that allow stakeholders to consider opportunity distribution in terms of content, provider, location, and support (Pinkard et al., 2021) in community conversations (Erete et al., 2021) about optimizing assets and reducing barriers to participation. We will share a 2019-20 instantiation in collaboration with community-based organizations in a majority Black urban neighborhood with strong OST engagement and expectations.

Results
Several key findings inform ongoing iteration of the social processes and the technical infrastructure, including better data integration and visualizations. We share three here: First, the process revealed limited STEM opportunities but also trusted locations that serve youth and families, such as churches, as potential spaces to connect with STEM providers. Second, loose ties between school locations and providers within walking distance were strengthened through community visualizations, including recognition of potential partners and cross-communication/planning between OST at school and at local sites. And third, a need for better understanding of the interplay between civic entities (e.g., parks with local instances but citywide expectations and programming) and community-based organizations and work to better connect and leverage those unique perspectives and positions in the system.

Significance
This work provides a method for infrastructuring at a broader geographic level and how it can be taken up by collectives of OST stakeholders working to establish more equitable learning opportunities both at the level of their program and their community.

Authors

• Nichole D. Pinkard, Northwestern University

• Caitlin Kennedy Martin, ckMartin Consulting