Abstract
What does it mean to be good at technology? What helps people continue to learn and adapt to technological change? How can we evaluate the process by which teens from diverse backgrounds (Black, LatinX, Native American, White, and Asian) learn technological skills? These are the central questions that animate Cassidy Puckett’s Redefining Geek: Bias and the Five Hidden Habits of Tech-Savvy Teens. The author engages with an interdisciplinary body of research in education, learning science, and science and technology studies. Research on education in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields has neglected “the process of technology learning, which allows cultural assumptions about ‘natural’ technology ability to go unquestioned.”
A former tech teacher in an award-winning public middle school, the author describes what motivated her to conduct research for this book: “little attention has been given to one core aspect of technological competence: the ability to learn as technologies change and new ones emerge” (p. 6). Puckett challenges earlier definitions of technological competence by shifting the focus to “how students learn” rather than “what students should learn.” “Not only do these definitions of competence not pay attention to the process of technology learning, but they are coupled with a general, dismissive assumption that kids born into the digital age are naturally skillful with technology, including all three versions of the national standards” (p. 7).
The book introduces five technology learning habits that the author uncovered in her six years of teaching technology workshops and her dissertation research. Redefining Geek is a stunning and significant contribution to the empirical and theoretical literature on digital inequality, learning science, technology studies, and the sociology of education. Puckett taught at a technology program for middle-school teens in a low-income community in Oakland for six years. Her experiences as a teacher inform the research design and the questions she pursued. The result is a rigorous comparative study that gives the reader a rare window into the educational experiences of teens as they participate in workshops for audio and video production, biology and ecology workshops, the creation of digital video games, and advanced music performance and production.
This book is a mixed-methods study that draws on multiple data points, including interviews, participant observation, survey research, shadowing, the use of new evaluation tools, and technical challenges. The study is a model of the happy marriage of quantitative and qualitative methods. It is public-facing research that integrates quantitative and qualitative data and that will appeal to those within and outside of the university classroom. Written in accessible language with the voices of tech-savvy teens woven throughout, it will be able to travel beyond the walls of the academy. The author offers evidence-driven theoretical insights and innovative methodological tools to address digital inequality in technology education from the perspective of youth. The book is divided into six chapters and a conclusion.
Chapter One, “Why Does Digital Inequality Persist?” situates this research in the interdisciplinary scholarship on digital inequality and technology education. Research on digital inequality has shown that the overrepresentation of Asian and white males in tech has had a negative impact on democracy. This chapter introduces the aim of the book: to provide an empirical study and tools for educators, policymakers, and sociologists to help “democratize tech use and support equitable benefits from tech.” The author argues that this can be achieved, in part, by redefining “what it means to be good with technology.” After reviewing four decades of the research on the persistence of digital inequality, Puckett concludes that although earlier research provided important insights, a critical question remained unanswered: How do people become and remain technologically competent?
The author identifies two limitations and gaps in the bodies of research that were top-down. First, they “fail to define and directly measure how people learn.” Second, technological competence “may be unfairly underestimated, similar to how academic skills are often underestimated by race” (p. 33). This chapter concludes with details on the research data and process. In the 1980s, the first level of the digital divide was defined as access to technology. Educational reformers focused on the technology infrastructure and increased technology use in public schools. Universal access was perceived to be a quick fix, but this did not solve the problem of digital inequality. Once access to the internet was provided, digital inequality scholars identified a second level of the digital divide: disparities in people’s skills and literacies. However, the author notes that “they haven’t been able to agree on the definition of technological competence, especially as technologies change” (p. 32).
One of the distinctions and methodological delights of this book is that the author employed a broader definition of “technology-related” programs. This allowed her to include “all forms of creative technology learning under the more inclusive STEAM umbrella (adding A for the arts).” This attracted a more diverse population that included Black, LatinX, and Native American students as well as whites and Asians. The goal was to include all tech-savvy teens, not just those engaged in traditional computer science and engineering programs. This book draws on data from interviews with 111 students who participated in a total of ten programs, including five programs in the San Francisco Bay area, three in Chicago, one in New York City, and one co-occurring in Chicago and New York. Describing the technology workshops and programs that she studied, Puckett notes that “programs varied in their structure”: most had formal projects and attendance policies, but a few others operated on a drop-in basis. “In all programs, technology education was a primary focus (e.g., learning how to build computers) or secondary focus (e.g., learning Second Life software to simulate an archaeological dig), delivered in person and online” (p. 46).
Chapter Two (“What Helps People Learn”) details the first three of five learning habits that the author identifies. The learning habits described in this chapter are general habits that are not specific to technology. They are: (1) willingness to try and fail, (2) management of frustration and boredom, and (3) use of models. The author looked for and identified general and technology-specific technology learning habits. These habits have been identified in previous research, but Puckett argues that they have never been identified as key to technology learning. (p. 55).
We meet students enrolled in a New York City program called Mouse/Geek Squad Summer Academy. Puckett argues that in the “hierarchy of habits, the first—willingness to try and fail—is the most fundamental, given that without it, little technology learning is possible” (p. 63). We meet students in this program who are learning to fail in a “safe space,” which provides them with the confidence to keep learning.
Chapter Three introduces and details the two technology-specific learning habits. These habits are (1) design logic and (2) efficiencies. This chapter focuses on students in a Latinx neighborhood in Chicago, where they are learning how to produce radio segments. Design logic is a habit that involves (1) an awareness of and ability to identify patterns embedded in the design of technological tools, (2) thinking about how to decode the logic of these patterns, and (3) reading the purpose behind the design against one’s goals. The author conceptualizes this as a type of “meta” awareness in the sense that students are cognizant of the symbolic systems they are decoding within and across technologies that may (or may not) build on one another (p. 89).
Efficiencies is the second tech-specific habit identified by the author during her observations. This learning habit has three components. First, “Awareness that the software and hardware often have shorter ways of accomplishing tasks (like keyboard commands vs. pull-down menu).” Second is “thinking about how to find these shorter pathways that make work and learning faster. Third, it involves trying out and practicing these efficient ways of accomplishing tasks.”
Chapter Four is an exemplary model of an intersectional and mixed methods study of inequality. This chapter illuminates the ways that the five learning habits are used by students as they solve technical tasks. This chapter draws on a rich set of quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data points include survey data from a random sample of 897 eighth-grade respondents and quantitative measures (Digital Adaptability Scale). The qualitative and observational data involved the author shadowing a group of eight students in the Chicago Public Schools’ eighth grade who varied in their technology habits. Quantitative measures were employed to make sure to include students with a mix of habits and racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds.
This empirical data directly challenges the assumption that teens are digital natives. The author replaces that idea with the concept of digital adaptability. The central argument in this chapter is that the myth of the digital native conceals the time and effort students invest in learning these habits. The author also reminds the reader that “quantitative measures can be used in ways that do not align with their intended purpose” and does not recommend that they be used to place students into hierarchical ranks such as placement in computer science courses.
Chapter Five examines the future trajectories of the teens and digital inequality. This chapter asks, “How are plans and aspirations pivotal for teens’ futures?” The author draws on survey results and interviews with teens to provide a comparative analysis of the ways that their different learning habits shaped their future occupational goals. The author found “no significant differences in the technology learning habits of lower- and higher-income students or between racial and ethnic groups” (p. 167). Instead, a key difference that emerged was in out-of-school supports, including with family and afterschool, summer, and other program supports. While schools could provide support, both cultural and structural dimensions shaped the development of learning habits. When compared to higher-income students, less access and support negatively affected the aspirations of lower-income students when making choices about their educational trajectories.
Chapter Six focuses on the problem of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping can prevent students from developing basic technological competence by not encouraging them to developing the five technology learning habits. The focus in this chapter is on the experience and perspective of students. It shows how students learn in different social spheres. The author introduces several measurement tools that she developed to identify the five technology learning habits, including the Digital Adaptability Scale (DAS) that can be used to measure how students experience gatekeeping. The scores on the DAS also show which habits students have developed and which ones need more support. This tool will be useful for educators, parents, policymakers, and sociologists interested in addressing digital inequality. One key finding is that “what happens at home . . . plays a central role in shaping students’ habits—and although schools might respond to these habits, they don’t currently tend to develop them” (p. 178). Another key finding is that friends are highly influential.
The Conclusion begins with a letter addressed to “My Web Designers,” written by the author to her former female teen students. In this letter, the author encourages the girls in this class to work together, trust themselves and each other, have fun, and be persistent. Redefining Geek is a based on rigorous research and makes original contributions to several fields, including digital sociology, sociology of education, sociology of culture, technology studies, and research methods. It deserves to be widely read by those within and outside of the academy: parents, educators, policymakers, and thought leaders. It is an accessible, theoretically sophisticated, empirically rigorous, and methodologically innovative study.
The author does not situate this book in the literature on race, racism, or antiracism, but I would strongly recommend it for courses in racial and ethnic studies. It achieves something rare in mixed-methods studies—it offers an elegantly written, accessible, and rigorous study that is antiracist, justice-oriented, intersectional, and practice-based. The author combines the observational skills, thick description, and beautiful writing of seasoned ethnographers with the methodological skills of a survey researcher. This book offers important metrics and tools that can be used to democratize the classroom and to inspire more diverse technology learning programs beyond conventional engineering and computer science courses.