Affinity spaces are the physical, virtual, or combination of locations where people come together around a shared affinity (interest) (Duncan & Hayes, 2012). Gee and Hayes (2010) categorize a space as an affinity space when it has the majority of the following twelve characteristics: 1) Affinity spaces share a common endeavor; 2) affinity spaces are not segregated by age; 3) affinity spaces are not segregated by experience; 4) affinity spaces encourage, but do not require, active participation; 5) interaction transforms content within an affinity space; 6) affinity spaces encourage both intensive and extensive knowledge; 7) affinity spaces encourage individual and distributed knowledge; 8) affinity spaces encourage dispersed knowledge; 9) affinity spaces encourage and honor tacit knowledge; 10) affinity spaces encourage a multitude of engagement; 11) affinity spaces have multiple routes to status; and 12) leadership is porous and leaders are resources. This session discusses each characteristic in relation to informal, online music-related affinity spaces of each characteristic and explores both practical and theoretical applications within virtual and in-person educational contexts.

Many scholars have produced powerful equity-centered curricular and pedagogical approaches relevant to CS educators. However, well-intentioned educators and curriculum providers who intend to use culturally relevant approaches may mistakenly apply these frameworks and unintentionally enact what we refer to as “culturally specific” approaches to education. Such approaches fail to account for students’ multifaceted experiences of culture and identity in the design of their learning experiences, ignoring their specific needs, goals, and desires for their learning. Rather than delivering content for groups of culturally specific identities, this position paper describes a “cartographical” curricular and pedagogical approach informed by a rhizomatic philosophy of learning that fosters dialogue among students as individuals with unique identities, interests, and needs that teachers and students explore together through computer science education. We position rhizomatic pedagogy as an additional lens to apply alongside other frameworks for fostering equity—one that establishes a set of strategies for engaging students in dialogue around their learning experiences, empowering learners to participate in the co-construction of their educational spaces, and building curricula that express hyper-local, deeply situated, student-centered teaching and learning practices.