Hi everyone.
I’m Jaemarie Solyst, I’m a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University in the Human-Computer
Interaction Institute, and I am excited to present our paper: Understanding Instructors’
Cultivation of Connectedness in K-12 Online Synchronous Culturally Responsive STEM and
Computing Education.
Science education and computing are important in an increasingly technical world.
However, there’s a major lack of diversity in science fields and computing.
Women and women of color are particularly underrepresented in these fields.
Primary and secondary education are a core time for learners with underrepresented backgrounds
to become introduced to science fields and develop their STEM and computing identity.
Pedagogy matters.
Culturally responsive pedagogy and teaching for both in school and out of school has been
an effective approach to engaging a diverse range of youth.
In particular, we focused culturally responsive computing, or CRC, to embolden girls in a
computing camp that we ran.
Three pillars are core to the CRC framework.
CRC approaches support learning about computing and technology by building on what learners
know through asset-building,
Encourages learners to reflect about their own identities, as well as critically analyze
and decompose existing power structures in computing
And aims to connect learners to each other and their communities.
Overall, the CRC framework supports positioning learners as techno-social change agents, poised
to advocate for justice in technology.
With the shift to online learning due to COVID-19, many culturally responsive STEM and computing
programs moved online, including ours.
Our camp was over the span of three consecutive weekends, taking place in the fall.
Ten racially diverse middle school girls participated.
The camp curriculum covered topics on robotics, computing, design of technology.
In full groups and smaller break out rooms, learners also programmed, using an online
platform with a social robot we developed.
We additionally ran a number of ice breaker activities, and activities with a focus on
learners analyzing power and identity dynamics in society and within technology.
However, a major challenge we faced was learners having a sense of Connectedness online, yet
this is so important to culturally responsive programs that aim to support learners from
marginalized backgrounds.
We decided to run a series of interviews with instructors of virtual culturally responsive
science and computing programs to better understand this, as well as gain insights on how these
instructors may support connectedness online.
We interviewed eight instructors, including one from our team with a background in culturally
responsive pedagogy.
Instructors of culturally responsive programs were from three different organizations, and
included a range of different teaching experiences and identified with a range of ethic and racial
backgrounds.
Interview questions included asking instructors about:
How they define connectedness and a good sense of community in-person and online
Challenges to creating connectedness online
And how they support building connectedness virtually
We conducted open-ended thematic analysis, and unearth a number of themes, also supported
by vignettes from our camp.
I’ll next present a few of the findings, but the rest can be found in the paper
We saw in the interviews and our own camp that cultivation of connectedness was a journey.
Instructors had to first go out of their way to create opportunities for connection and
collaboration amongst learners, as well as help scaffold when it may not go as planned.
For example, in our camp, we encouraged learners to discuss with one another in the breakout
rooms during coding tasks, especially if they had questions about programming.
However, when learners asked for help from their peers like we had suggested, their requests
were often followed by silence in the beginning.
They instead sometimes opted to privately message instructors.
In the interviews, instructors revealed that they had to heavily scaffold peer-to-peer
connection in the beginning.
One instructor said, “I help facilitate those connections…
they’re more willing to talk to me when they’re not totally empowered to go to the
whole group, So I will find two people or three people who have those similar interests,
and then I’ll group them up in the next activity we do together.”
Relatedly, instructors characterized a good sense of internal community as being socially
learner-led, such that learners initiate and carry on social interactions with one another.
One instructor mentioned, “As soon as they are kind of leading the way, and I’m just
there to click the mouse, they’re doing amazing.”
Another instructor of a program that used Gather.town, where all learners and instructors
have avatars, stated that good connectedness online was when they could see the learners’
avatars’ speech bubbles from afar, denoting constant talking.
Another major theme we saw related to complexities in achieving equity.
For example, learners had different access to devices.
One learner logged in on a tablet, in which the smaller display did not work with the
programming interface we developed.
An instructor suggested that equity is key to building a sense of connectedness, since
a lack of inequity illustrates the haves and the have notes.
If someone is left out, it can build resentment.
The learners are conscious of what they’re missing out on.”
However, equity was also bolstered by virtual experiences, due to lower geographic barriers
to participating in science and computing programs.
For example, one instructor said, “We have built a community across the state…
I think students need to see that there are other like-minded girls… you can see a lot
of different girls there, and that’s important.”
Lastly, the last finding I’ll share is that being online offered different affordances
compared to being in-person.
We found that instructors utilized the home environment for building connectedness with
community outside of the science and computing programs.
For example, in our camp, one learner received technical support from a parent multiple times
throughout the camp.
As the parent made appearances in the learners’ camera, they got to know the instructors and
be involved.
Being at home allowed learners to introduce family members or even pets.
Other instructors utilized the home environment to include the learners’ identity or values
or in ways that were not possible in-person.
For example, they created activities where learners would find objectives in their rooms
to share with the rest of the group.
Instructors could utilize this as a point of connection between learners, if they had
similar interests or things to share from their homes.
Other findings can be found in the paper.
In conclusion, we show from our camp data and interview what connectedness from a culturally
responsive standpoint looks like virtually in science education, as well as how it can
be supported and addressed.
In the paper, we share a number of design opportunities to help enhance learners’
experiences in culturally responsive programs.
For example, utilizing virtual worlds for learners and instructors to have a sense of
self-expression and social presence.
Specifically, instructors wanted the ability to reduce their social presence over time
to let learners connect more on their own.
You can find more information in the paper.
I want to thank my advisors for supporting me in conducting research, as well as the
research team and coauthors for this paper.
Please reach out to me if you have questions or would like to connect.
Thank you for listening to my talk!