Despite the digital saturation of today's youth across demographic groups, students of color and females remain severely underrepresented in computer science. Reporting on a sequential mixed methods study, this article explores the ways that high school computer science teachers can act as change agents to broaden the participation in computing for historically underrepresented students. Three high school case studies reveal a critical need for professional development and support to do this work. The subsequent part of the study focuses on the impact of a district-university intervention which trained 25 urban teachers to teach Advanced Placement computer science in their schools. The swift success of this intervention was evident from the following years' dramatic increase in course offerings and enrollment of females, Latinos, and African Americans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnyonJ. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3–41.
2.
AnyonJ. (1995). Social class and the hidden curriculum. Rereading America, 45–60.
3.
AppleM. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
4.
BeckerH. J. (2000). Subject and teacher objectives for computer-using classes by school socio-economic status.Irvine, CA: CRITO.
5.
BowlesS., & GintisH. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life.New York: Basic Books, Inc.
6.
California Department of Education. (2004). California Basic Educational Data System. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/
7.
California Department of Education. (2005). California Basic Educational Data System. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/
8.
Cochran-SmithM. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse?Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3–17.
9.
College Entrance Examination Board. (2002). Advanced placement program California and national summary reports.New York, NY: The College Board.
10.
College Entrance Examination Board. (2005). Advanced placement program California and national summary reports.New York, NY: The College Board.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
13.
Darling-HammondL. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission reportEducational Researcher, 27(1), 5–15.
14.
FullanM. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12–17.
15.
GoodeJ. (2004). Mind the gap: The digital dimension of college access. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(11), 4166 (UMI No. AAT 3155020).
16.
GoodeJ.EstrellaR., & MargolisJ. (2006). Lost in translation: Gender and high school computer science. In AsprayW. & CohoonJ. M. (Eds.), Women in IT: Reasons on the underrepresentation (pp. 89–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HeckerD. E. (2005). Occupational employment projections to 2014. Monthly Labor Review, 128(11), 70–101.
18.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
19.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2005). Enrollment in APCS Courses, 2003–2006.Los Angles, CA.
20.
MacLeodJ. (1987). Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
MargolisJ.HolmeJ. J.EstrellaR.GoodeJ.NaoK., & StummeS. (2003). The computer science pipeline in urban schools: Access to what? For whom?IEEE Technology and Society, 22(3), 12–19.
22.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.
OakesJ. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.
24.
OakesJ. (2002). Education inadequacy, inequality, and failed state policy: A synthesis of expert reports prepared for Williams v. State of California. [On-line]. Available: www.decentschools.org
SchofieldJ. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
28.
ShulmanL. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129–135.
TuckerA.DeekF.JonesJ.McCowanD.StephensonC., & VernoA. (2003). A model curriculum for K-12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K-12 task force curriculum.New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Science Teachers Association.
32.
VegsoJ. (2005a). CS bachelor's degree production grows in 2004; Poised for decline. Computing Research News, 17(2), 3.
33.
VegsoJ. (2005b). Interest in CS as a major drops among incoming freshmen. Computing Research News, 17(3), 17.
34.
VegsoJ. (2006). Drop in CS bachelor's degree production. Computing Research News, 18(2), 5.
35.
WarschauerM. (2000). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the track. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4).
36.
WillisP. E. (1981). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower.
