Whose Imaginings? Whose Future?
In this episode I unpack Stauffer’s (2017) keynote titled “Whose imaginings? Whose future?,” which encourages educators to reflect on who is the shaping the future of their field.
-
Welcome back to another episode of the
csk8 podcast my name is Jared O'Leary
each week of this podcast is either an
interview with a guest or multiple
guests or a solo episode where I unpacks
some scholarship in relation to Computer
Science Education now this week is a
little bit different so it's 2023 first
week and you may notice if you're
watching this on YouTube it's actually a
video of myself as opposed to just audio
so hey this is what I look like if you
didn't know and by the way if you're
watching this on YouTube I have a
resting or thinking face that looks
upset or intense so FYI I'm not mad so
I'm gonna be doing some things
differently this year I'm going to be
experimenting with some new ways of
creating and promoting episodes so I'm
gonna try out some new stuff so some of
the future interviews hopefully if
guests will say yes to it will include
video as well as the audio that we were
originally doing so you can let me know
in the comments on YouTube or in
comments honestly on like Twitter or
Tick Tock or wherever you're finding
these excerpts from and just let me know
like what you think of the episodes and
like some things that you'd like to see
in the future so today I'm going to be
unpacking a paper and this paper is
titled who's imaginings whose future and
it's by Sandra L Stauffer who is a
professor that I had at Arizona State
University so I went there for all three
of my degrees so I worked with Dr
Stauffer for many years she was actually
on my dissertation committee so thank
you to artist offer for your feedback
all right so this paper is actually a
keynote chat for the society for music
teacher education 2017 conference and
the theme of this was imagining possible
Futures so I'm going to chat through
this particular paper and kind of relate
it to Computer Science Education now you
might be wondering Jared why are you
reading this particular paper or this
particular keynote well the reason why
is because I want this to kind of serve
as a potential warning for a field to
not get complacent with things and
whatnot now when I read through this
paper it reminded me a lot of the
introduction to a book by Ralph Waldo
Emerson so I'm going to read off a quote
here it's like the very first paragraph
and when I read this in high school it
was like this really resonates with me
so the book begins with quote our age is
retrospective it builds the sipakris of
the fathers it writes biographies
histories and criticism the foregoing
Generations beheld God and nature face
to face we through their eyes why should
not we also enjoy an original relation
to the universe why shouldn't we have a
poetry and philosophy of insight and not
of tradition and a religion by
Revelation to us and not the history of
theirs in bosom for a season in nature
whose floods of Life stream around and
through us and invite us by the powers
they Supply to action proportion to
Nature why should we grope among the dry
bones of the past or put the living
generation into masquerade out of its
fated wardrobe The Sun Shines today also
there is more wool in flax in the fields
there are new lands new Men new thoughts
let us demand our own works and laws and
worship end quote now that quote really
resonated with me in high school and it
still resonates with me today I think
it's important for us to not just look
back and build off of the past but also
to look forward and question what could
be done and what could we do and in this
case in the paper that we're going to be
looking at we're going to look at the
questions of whose imaginings whose
future so the paper begins with an
introduction that's kind of like thanks
everybody and talks about how we had
some advances in the field of music
education but again I'm going to relate
all of this back to Computer Science
Education because I think it's really
important to learn from other fields
other domains to be able to apply these
contexts into our own context
right here's an important quote to
consider this is from page three quote
to look at our history one would imagine
that music teacher educators are quite
fond of change or at least enamored of
getting together to talk about the
future of music teacher education music
education in the schools or even the
future of schools of Music this is
certainly not the first time we've
imagined the future or that others have
done so on our behalf and sent a support
Report with their recommendations
talking about the future or engaging in
some kind of strategic planning
initiative occurs in an almost
predictable cycle in our professional
organizations end quote okay so this
quote really resonates with me not only
for music education because that's what
my degrees and my background is in but
also in computer science education I
have seen people talk about like
reimagining the future of Computer
Science Education or having these
reports that kind of like talk about
here are some recommendations for the
future and I've done a lot of unpacking
scholarship episodes on those different
types of reports on this particular
podcast now this is important for us to
consider because we need to make sure
that we are not just stuck in the cycle
of like reimagining without actually
doing things so the author goes on to
talk about some examples of some of the
reports and whatnot that the profession
has engaged in again this is music
education and it talks about a variety
of topics that like relate to things
that are still being discussed today and
not really resolved so the author goes
on to say well has anything actually
really changed and their response is
well yes but also no so here's a quote
from page four quote it's easy to look
outward for reasons maybe for excuses
for surely the world is a messy
complicated place and the need to change
will always be with us but let me also
pause it gently with respect that in
this historical moment we ourselves may
be in the way of the change we seek why
because we are firmly embedded
cognitively socially emotionally
practically musically in ideas
structures and realities we already know
and to shake ourselves loose from those
structure will take concentrated
persistent effort end quote a little bit
further down on that page quote to
imagine an unknown is challenging and
the future is certainly unknown as
difficult as it may be though we should
imagine possible features and we should
do so while also admitting to ourselves
two things first we have little to no
idea about what the future will be
remember we knew nothing of YouTube 13
years ago and second to paraphrase
cultural Anthropologist Clifford geertz
who is paraphrasing sociologist Max
Weber we are caught in webs of
significance that we ourselves have spun
the structures we have built the codes
the signs the stories the narratives the
discourses that we share and know so
well also constrain the change we seek
end quote now for context this was
written in 2017 and presented in 2017 so
that's why the dates are a little off of
YouTube this part really made me reflect
a bit so when looking at this and was
thinking okay well in what way am I
stuck in the past in what way am I not
of all solving and that for me is kind
of like a difficult question to think
through because I constantly engage in
reflection practices like you may have
heard in some of the interviews that
I've done that I will reflect in the
mornings and the evenings and I will
just constantly think of like how to
evolve as a human being in ways that I
think would benefit me and people around
me in the world Etc and when I think
about all the experiences that I've had
in education that have led to this yes
it's a varied uh variegated
multi-perspectable approach in terms of
I am from music education professionally
speaking got all my degrees are in that
and then I became a band General music
percussion director and then I moved
into like a technology role where I was
teaching coding to kids and then I went
in and I did professional development
created professional development and
created curriculum that's used by
students and teachers all around the
world had all these like really
different experiences and whatnot but I
am still stuck in specific narratives
and codes and ways of understanding that
I are related to how I was brought up
through education not only as a student
but also as an educator or as a
facilitator so all of these things kind
of like impact the ways that I view the
world of education and therefore impact
what I see as possible futures for the
field for myself as an educator and for
the students that I work with this is
beneficial and then I have this like
Gestalt to build off of however it is
also problematic because I am not able
to see things that are outside of this
like narrow scope of you that I've had
in the world of Education again even
though that I have had a variety of
experiences that most teachers don't
have who might only teach one subject
area it's still a very limiting and very
narrow perspective to go off of which is
why when I do these unpacking
scholarship episodes I have pulled in
some scholarship not only from like
sociology but also from like sports
psychology like the episode that I did
on Canada's Erickson's paper which the
paper is titled the role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert
performance if you want to check out
that particular episode or released in
January of 2021 but it's also why I look
at like more familiar domains for myself
like music education like in this
particular keynote that I'm reading off
but then also some more relevant domains
like maker culture maker spaces Etc so
you'll find a bunch of different podcast
episodes that pull in all these
different perspectives to try and look
at this idea this field this domain from
different angles different lenses
different perspectives in order to
better understand some different ways
that we might be able to help the people
that we're working with whether it's
teachers or students or whomever but all
of that starts with first realizing that
we have some things to look at and to
reflect upon to really understand where
we've come from so I had a professor who
did a class that was talking about
different types of cultures and whatnot
and this is broadly speaking like
Capital C type of cultures and so one of
the ways that he framed this particular
class was around centering decentering
re-centering so the centering idea was
kind of reflecting on where you're at
who you are as an individual and how you
fit within different types of cultures
Etc the de-centering was in unpacking
that and trying to find some areas of
growth or areas where you might not have
reflected on or maybe even to
problematize some of the ideas that you
hold and then the re-centering was to
okay now after you've like kind of like
broken things down and like learned some
new things let's build it back together
and let's figure out where you are now
so it's just like continuous cycle that
you go through of centering decentering
re-centering that allows you to kind of
like reflect upon where you are where
you're going and like some hopefully
expose some areas that you might not
understand so this I think is something
that we could do when it comes to the
field in like the future of the field
and our own philosophies or perspectives
on the field now one of the things that
I've mentioned in some of the other
podcast episodes is I'm not really a
standards kind of person like I don't
look at them go yeah this is great like
I understand that there are some uses
for them however there's also some
problems and I'll do an unpacking
scholarship episode in the future that
kind of like unpacks it but here's a
little quote from page four from Dr
Stafford quote standardization has
become more and more urgent since the
Industrial Revolution a century earlier
than that how is one machine to
interface with another one measurement
to be compared to another how could
pieces of an Enterprise or parts of a
machine made in different places be
compatible standardization in gizmos and
gadgets and many other places in our
lives is a good thing standardization
allows for predictability which is why
we know that given the correct adapter
we can plug our iPhones into sockets
nearly anywhere in the world and
recharge them end quote so yes the
author admits that there are some good
things with standards I agree there are
some great things that can come from
standards however they pose a potential
reframing of things and this is on page
five that I'm going to read off now the
organizations nafmi and Nasim are
organizations that kind of like help
support the field of music education now
think of this like a csta or ACM those
are kind of like the equivalents when I
read off this particular quote so this
is from page five quote but structures
and standards have multiple downsides
among them lack a variety no guarantee
that the standard is the best option
control of Standards may be inequitable
or unjust Market or political forces and
elimination or silencing of rival ideas
when a standard is widely accepted for
whatever reason or through whatever set
of circumstances so we need to be honest
our structures Naf me nasm and others
are a century old based on language and
ideas that are two centuries-old and
firmly grounded in standardization and
in my view our structures have impacts
that stand in the way of change still as
dareda says within every text every
structure is its own undoing it is
always already coming apart cracking
rupturing and in those cracks and breaks
are the possibilities of opening and
newness how might we hurry that along
end quote now a little bit further down
on the page the author clarifies that
the different structures have some
different binaries and even dualisms
that are in this case centuries old and
they're often meant to perpetuate the
paradigms and practices of their day so
here's a very quick little history you
listen for those of you who are
unfamiliar with it so music education
was actually introduced into the schools
in the 1800s and it was by Lowell Mason
so Lowell Mason was running it like
basically think of it an out of school
choir with kids so Lowell Mason wanted
to prove that hey kids can learn how to
sing and they can actually do this in
school so this could be beneficial for
them so they created this program this
choir and they advocated for it and they
got it into schools when it was
introduced into the schools it was the
type of like music making and activities
that people like to engage in outside of
school context the same thing happened
with band and with Orchestra for those
of you who don't know in the 1800s and
like even in the early 1900s the popular
form of listening to music for like
player pianos and Records Etc came out
was to go and listen to a live
performance by a band so this would be
like equivalent to going to like a rap
concert today in terms of seeing your
favorite musicians and hearing your
favorite songs in order to listen to
that because this was like pre-radio
pre-record player Etc you had to go to
like a park and listen to a live uh
organization or Group performing
whatever kind of music that they were
playing
now this made it so that if you wanted
to listen to your own music you had to
either perform on an instrument or sing
or know somebody who would do this so
when all these different forms of music
education whether it was like the choir
or orchestra or band when they were
introduced into these schools that was
the popular type of music of that day
now here's the real kicker to think
through if music education had not been
introduced until 2023 we would have if
we had taken the exact same approach we
would not introduce band choir and
Orchestra why because that is not the
popular music that people are listening
to we would not be advocating for hey we
should be doing this thing that's like a
couple centuries old and we should be
putting it into our classrooms instead
what we would say is we need to
introduce the type of music that people
are listening to and in creating today
and so that would most likely be rap
hip-hop EDM production it would not be
Jazz it would not be Rock Etc it would
be the things that people are really
engaging with right now this is
important to consider from a like policy
and advocacy kind of standpoint when we
are advocating for like different ways
of making music in this particular
context we need to make sure we are
advocating for the ways that people
engage with music outside of schools now
what does this have to do with Computer
Science Education you might be wondering
well let me tell you real quick my fear
for computer science education is that
we are going to replicate some of those
problems that music educators have in
that we are going to introduce Computer
Science Education
in ways that were meaningful to us at
the time and not evolve and adapt to
what is going on with the ways that
people are engaging with computer
science practices Concepts skills Etc
outside of the classroom which when we
are stuck in standards these standards
are written and they are often not
adjusted or adapted or modified for
several years sometimes a decade or more
depending on like the field Etc so I had
the privilege a few years ago to work
with some Wyoming Educators to come up
with their state standards but one of
the things that we talked about is how
the process typically was like I don't
know like a decade or so between like
when standards were implemented and when
a new weird Vision came out but that is
too slow of a process for computer
science education so when we're engaging
in these standards we have this like
tendency to create things that are
relevant in the time but we don't
necessarily adapt to the changes that
happen over the subsequent years and
therefore the standards become more and
more out of date and and less useful so
what can we do about this so the author
mentions in this keynote that the first
thing that they recommend is that
instead of calling them standards
perhaps we should call them guidelines
so here's a quote from the bottom of
page five quote standards are codes for
compliance meant to keep things in place
and predictable for a paradigm that
looks like this vertical line and is
about the past that is not what we are
about end quote now if you're wondering
what does the vertical line thing refer
to it's talking about something that's
mentioned in the pages above it so if
you're interested to check that out but
it's just kind of like a framework or
metaphor to think through but the main
point of this particular argument is if
we change the word standards to
guidelines then it makes it more honest
as to what they are and then less
punitive so every state has like
different variations of like the
national standards which makes it so
that there's more local control so some
districts have a different set of
standards in other districts depending
on what state you're in well as some
states have the just like alignment to
the national standards now again this is
just guidelines like I agree that the
wording is better and um hopefully we
can look at this and and like understand
that it should be more adaptable to the
local which we talk about a little bit
later in this particular keynote so the
second thing that the author recommends
is quote since many of us here have been
raised in the structure we have adopted
the language the codes and the gestures
of the structure and we perpetuate that
language those gestures those codes
without thinking about it end quote this
is from page six a little bit further
down quote while we're talking about
codes look at your school's website
recruiting materials language
descriptions advertising what are the
messages encoded in them who are they
important to why and do we have enough
courage to talk about that to be honest
and transparent about what those
messages might mean end quote so there
have been multiple guests who have been
on this particular podcast and then
multiple unpacking scholarship episodes
where kind of talk about how
representation is important for
different reasons so if you want to
learn more about that check out some of
the episodes on representation at csk8
podcast now the third thing that the
author recommends is very specific to
the schools of music or music programs
so the author recommends just sitting in
your department and closing your eyes
and just listening to the kinds of
sounds that you hear now the author
recommends not only listening to the
different types of sounds but also
listening at different times of day and
to figure out who is welcome and who is
not welcome within this particular
program so for context in schools of
music for example you might hear Jazz
you might hear classical like the
Western European classical music but if
you don't hear EDM or you don't hear rap
or Mariachi or throat singing or
whatever this should give you an idea of
who is welcome and who is not welcome in
the schools you can do a similar thing
in computer science programs you can go
into classrooms and you can listen to
the things that people are saying or you
can use your eyes open your eyes and
look at not only who is in the classroom
but the ways that they are engaging with
computer science Concepts skills
practices
Etc in the classrooms that are offering
computer science or integrating computer
science into them what will this tell
you well it might tell you about who is
welcome who is not welcome might also
tell you what kinds of ways that people
are able to engage with computer science
and that might again tell you who might
be interested or not interested in those
times of Engagement so again like my
classroom was multiple programming
languages going on simultaneously so if
you walked into it you'd see one student
working on JavaScript and coding some
art and animation the next student might
be working on scratch like a game the
next student might be working on Sonic
Pi coding some live music and then the
next student might be doing Swift
whether Swift playgrounds or might be
coding like an app for their iPhone or
an iPad or something like that so
there's all these different ways of
Engagement going on in the classroom now
if you were to just listen you would
hear people talking about things that
they're interested it in rather than
just like recreating the same thing so
they'd be like talking about sports and
how they're going to integrate that idea
or that concept into their project or
whatever so there's a lot of like things
that people were able to do in the
classrooms that I work with that was by
design that was intentional if you want
to learn more about how I designed and
facilitated those kinds of classes then
check out the episode title applications
of affinity space characteristics in
computer science education now the
fourth thing that the author recommends
is actually looking at not just what is
being taught or how it is being taught
but who is engaging with a field or a
domain so who are these students who are
learning computer science if we're
thinking about it in relation to the
classes you might be facilitating don't
just focus on the content or the
pedagogy we need to think about who we
are working with we are working with
individuals we can't just treat them as
a collective or as a group Etc
and we need to not just think about like
their demographics and their cultures
but also why is this important for them
to understand or for them to know or if
they are not passionate about Computer
Science Education why that is something
for us to consider and for us to be able
to adapt to so the author recommends
that every program should look different
so here's a little random tangent from
back when I was teaching General music
and band and when I first started
teaching the very first class that I
ever taught on my own like after I was
hired it was a three grade level course
I think it was like second third and
fourth grade something like that and are
supposed to teach them a song about
being back into school and ready to go
only problem is none of the students in
the class spoke any English I was not
allowed to modify the lessons or I would
get written up which I did and instead I
was forced by administrators to teach
students how to do a song in English
when they didn't understand what we were
saying and it was a split grade level
across three different grades so it was
not developmentally appropriate for
everybody this for some it was too easy
for others it was too hard why was I
forced to do this because every single
Elementary School all 50 plus of them in
that District had to teach the exact
same lesson the same week to the same
grade levels things were standardized to
a point where it did not account for who
was in the classroom I am so grateful
that I had that terrible experience the
first time I taught on my own because it
really taught me the lesson that what
matters is who we are working with not
just the concepts and practices that we
are teaching that was such a valuable
lesson for myself to get on my very
first experience teaching on my own full
time at least because I had been
teaching Drumline since my like senior
year of high school in private lessons
and all that fun stuff here's a quote
from page seven that I'll modify
slightly to focus on Computer Science
Education it's definitely applicable
quote Computer Science Education is
learning and teaching in many ways among
many people in many places end quote a
little bit further down quote perhaps we
can begin imagining possible features
from a different point of view a local
point of view every view is a view from
somewhere and the local is where life is
lived Grand statements are nice they are
made by us for people we barely know
what do I know of the life of a child
experiencing homelessness or a popular
musician becoming guitar songwriter
teacher or a string student in New York
or an adolescent in West Virginia what
Futures do they imagine how do I know
about them and if I do not know about
them then what how could music making
and Music Learning be meaningful if one
does not know what it means to anyone
else but oneself so here's my bold
proposal what I propose is radical
listening end quote again from page
seven this point really resonates with
me if you haven't listened to the
episode that John Stapleton and I did
it's on a paper that we wrote titled
fostering intersectional identities
through rhizomatic learning I highly
recommend taking a look at that it's
really focusing on making it so that
curricula and computer science
engagement is hyper local rather than
just like everybody across a school or
District or region State Nation Etc is
all engaging in the same ways of
learning and understanding as somebody
who has written curricula that is used
around the world what I really tried to
focus on was making it so that students
and teachers were encouraged to adapt
the projects to make it more meaningful
to them so every single video every
single resource always encouraged kids
and adults to make this unique and
customized to their own learning
experiences rather than making us so
that everybody replicated the projects
that I demonstrated in scratch junior or
scratch so when it comes to computer
science you can do this for yourself and
the students that you work with again
the way that I did it listen to the
Affinity space episode that I mentioned
earlier but it's just basically about
getting it so that kids come into the
class with their interests and they
share it with other people by creating
different Expressions through code so
the author goes on to talk about what
does radical listening mean so the
describing experience of attending a
political rally as a protester and so
there were basically two sides divided
by a road and like some barricades and
things like that so one side was in
support of somebody who was visiting the
town and then the other side were people
who were against that and while they may
have been like yelling things at the
other side or they may have been like
holding up signs that demonstrated what
they're saying they're not actually
talking in a way that both sides were
willing to engage and listen
appropriately instead they're engaging
in discourse of practices that were
trying to persuade one side to
understand and agree with the other side
as opposed to trying to listen for
understanding a different point of view
or a different perspective one way that
I think this is really relevant to
Computer Science Education is okay well
if we think of the roughly 40 of people
who don't think that Equity should be
discussed in computer science context
rather than saying hey it should be
discussed in computer science context
why don't we actually sit down and ask
well why don't you think that I've
talked about this in other episodes like
related to curriculum and integration
Etc about how maybe the people who think
that Equity should not be discussed in
computer science may be the reason why
is because they don't think that we
should focus on anything other than
skills Concepts practices Etc so we
should be hyper focused on the
understandings and applying them in a
context you might apply it in an
equitable way hopefully you would but
those people might think we should focus
on the concepts and practices rather
than the application of it itself I
don't know I'm just guessing here what
the author is recommending is that we
listen and I recommend that for the
field as well it's trying to better
understand different perspectives that
we might not agree with all right so
that was kind of a short summary of The
keynote itself if you're interested in
it I highly recommend taking a look at
it but at the end of these unpacking
scholarship episodes I like to think
through some lingering questions and
thoughts and just kind of share them to
share here are the things that I'm still
thinking through as a result of reading
through a article or whatever
okay so the first question that I have
is when is a standard more useful than a
guideline so while I agree with what the
author is saying in terms of instead of
calling them standards what if we call
them guidelines I can also think of
advocacy and policy work around getting
computer science into schools where it
might be really beneficial to have
standards it makes us look more
legitimate it makes us look more like a
core subject area which some are arguing
computer science should be but again as
I've ranted about in other episodes of
this podcast that I have a tendency to
disagree with that because it makes us
so that if we continue to add one more
subject this year and then I don't know
five years from now we add another core
subject and then another and then
another we're just going to continue to
dilute all of these subject areas that
we have so instead of mandating a bunch
of new subject areas over the next
couple of decades perhaps instead we
should make it so that you get to choose
where you develop your expertise the
next question that I have is whose
voices are being heard and who's are
being silenced so as a non-binary
individual I have noticed a moment in
the field where white male colleagues
have been dismissed and I find that to
be problematic it's great that we
amplify voices of marginalized
individuals groups communities Etc but
if we flip the oppression onto the
oppressor this goes against Paulo
Freddie's notion of dialogue which if
you haven't listened to those particular
episodes I have done unpacking
scholarship episodes on chapters 1
chapter 2 chapter 3 and chapter four I
believe it's chapter three in particular
that talks about dialogue so I highly
recommend taking a look at that one to
learn more about the concepts that I'm
talking about here because I totally
agree with advocating for an amplifying
voice of marginalized identities but I
have an issue with if we just simply
flip it so that the oppressor is now the
oppressed because if we agree that an
act is highly inappropriate or
problematic why would we want to then do
that onto the person who's doing it to
us it just doesn't make sense to me
another question that I have is when and
why are the needs of Corporation and
outweighing the needs of communities
groups or individuals and if you want to
hear more about that particular idea
check out the podcast episode or even
the paper that's for free that I did on
a titled reconceptualizing music making
music technology and freedom in the age
of neoliberalism and I relate to this
computer science education if you listen
to the podcast episode but the paper
itself also talks quite a bit about
Computer Science Education in particular
even though it's about music education
and music technology and here's one more
quote from page 10 quote who's
imaginings whose future I don't know
what if instead of imagining a future
for undergraduates we imagined with them
what if instead of imagining a future
for in-service teachers our colleagues
we imagined with them what if instead of
imagining a future for pre-k-12 Learners
or any Learners anywhere for that matter
we imagined with them the future is not
us the future is them end quote Dr
Stauffers drop on some mics on that one
I really like that quote I really like
those questions to think through and it
definitely resonates with that paper
that I mentioned on fostering
intersectional identities through
rhizomatic learning so check out that
episode if you haven't listened to that
one if you got an idea that you like to
share about how you are imagining things
with the students and colleagues that
you work with or the features you can
let me know on social media thank you so
much for listening to this episode if
you enjoyed this please consider
supporting you could find out how to do
that on my website by just going to
jaredelleary.com support or just
clicking the link that says support this
content in the menu and there are
several different ways that you can
learn how to support for free stay tuned
next week for another episode until then
I hope you're all staying safe and are
having a wonderful week
Article
Stauffer, S. L. (2017, September 9). Whose Imaginings? Whose Future? Closing keynote for the Society for Music Teacher Education 2017 Conference.
My One Sentence Summary
This keynote encourages educators to reflect on who is the shaping the future of their field.
Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts
When is a standard more useful than a guideline?
Whose voices are being heard and whose are being silenced?
When and why are the needs of corporations outweighing the needs of communities, groups, or individuals?
Whose Imaginings? Whose Future?
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
Fostering Intersectional Identities through Rhizomatic Learning
In this episode, Jon Stapleton and I read our (2022) publication titled “Fostering intersectional identities through rhizomatic learning,” which uses mapping as a metaphor for individualized learning.
On "Methodolatry" and [Computer Science] Teaching as Critical and Reflective Praxis
In this episode I unpack Regelski’s (2002) publication titled “On ‘methodolatry’ and music teaching as critical and reflective praxis,” which problematizes the lack of philosophy, theory, and professional praxis in music education. Although this article is published in a music education journal, I discuss potential implications for computer science educators.
Read Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire
Listen to the episodes on Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Reconceptualizing “Music Making:” Music Technology and Freedom in the Age of Neoliberalism
In this episode I unpack Benedict and O’Leary’s (2019) publication titled “Reconceptualizing “music making:” Music technology and freedom in the age of Neoliberalism,” which explores the use of computer science practices to counter neoliberal influence on education.
The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance
In this episode I unpack Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s (1993) publication titled “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance,” which debunks the notion of innate abilities within a domain and describes the role of deliberate practice in achieving expert performance.
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
