skip to main content
10.1145/3230977.3230998acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching Inclusive Design

Published: 08 August 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Inclusive design is important in today's software industry, but there is little research about how to teach it. In collaboration with 9 teacher-researchers across 8 U.S. universities and more than 400 computer and information science students, we embarked upon an Action Research investigation to gather insights into the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) that teachers need to teach a particular inclusive design method called GenderMag. Analysis of the teachers' observations and experiences, the materials they used, direct observations of students' behaviors, and multiple data on the students' own reflections on their learning revealed 11 components of inclusive design PCK. These include strategies for anticipating and addressing resistance to the topic of inclusion, strategies for modeling and scaffolding perspective taking, and strategies for tailoring instruction to students' prior beliefs and biases.

References

[1]
Engin Bozdag. 2013. Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and information technology 15, 3 (2013), 209--227.
[2]
M. Burnett, R. Counts, R. Lawrence, and H. Hanson. 2017. Gender HCl and microsoft: Highlights from a longitudinal study. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 139--143.
[3]
Margaret Burnett, Anicia Peters, Charles Hill, and Noha Elarief. 2016. Finding gender-inclusiveness software issues with GenderMag: A field investigation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2586--2598.
[4]
Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Laura Beckwith, and Anicia Peters. 2018. The GenderMag Kit: How to use the GenderMag Method to find inclusiveness issues through a gender lens. (February 2018). http://gendermag.org
[5]
Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Jamie Macbeth, Stephann Makri, Laura Beckwith, Irwin Kwan, Anicia Peters, and William Jernigan. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software's gender inclusiveness. Interacting with Computers 28, 6 (2016), 760--787.
[6]
Margaret M. Burnett, Laura Beckwith, Susan Wiedenbeck, Scott D. Fleming, Jill Cao, Thomas H. Park, Valentina Grigoreanu, and Kyle Rector. 2011. Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 450--460.
[7]
Rebecca Cooper, John Loughran, and Amanda Berry. 2015. Science Teachers' PCK. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P. & Loughran, J., Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (2015), 60--74.
[8]
Sally Jo Cunningham, Annika Hinze, and David M Nichols. 2016. Supporting gender-neutral digital library creation: A case study using the GenderMag toolkit. In International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. Springer, 45--50.
[9]
Anthony Faiola. 2007. The design enterprise: Rethinking the HCI education paradigm. Design Issues 23, 3 (2007), 30--45.
[10]
Juan-Miguel Fernandez-Balboa and Jim Stiehl. 1995. The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. 11 (05 1995), 293--306.
[11]
Anthony G Greenwald and Mahzarin R Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review 102, 1 (1995), 4.
[12]
Valentina Grigoreanu, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Jill Cao, Kyle Rector, and Irwin Kwan. 2012. End-user debugging strategies: A sensemaking perspective. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 19, 1 (2012), 5.
[13]
Allison Gulamhussein. 2013. Teaching the Teachers: Effective professional development. (Sep 2013). http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/research/ teaching-teachers-effective-professional-development
[14]
Jan H. van Driel, Nico Verloop, and Wobbe de Vos. 1998. Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. 35 (08 1998), 673--695.
[15]
Gillian R Hayes. 2014. Knowing by doing: Action Research as an approach to HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer, 49--68.
[16]
C. Hill, S. Ernst, A. Oleson, A. Horvath, and M. Burnett. 2016. GenderMag experiences in the field: The whole, the parts, and the workload. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 199-- 207.
[17]
Charles G. Hill, Maren Haag, Alannah Oleson, Chris Mendez, Nicola Marsden, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2017. Gender-inclusiveness personas vs. stereotyping: Can we have it both ways?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6658-- 6671.
[18]
Heather C. Hill, Deborah Loewenberg Ball, and Stephen Schilling. 2008. Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. 39 (07 2008), 372--400.
[19]
Heather C. Hill, Brian Rowan, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. 2005. Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 42, 2 (2005), 371--406. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
[20]
Peter Hubwieser, Johannes Magenheim, Andreas Mühling, and Alexander Ruf. 2013. Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for computer science. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (ICER '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--8.
[21]
C. D. Hundhausen, D. Fairbrother, and M. Petre. 2012. An Empirical Study of the "Prototype Walkthrough": A Studio-Based Activity for HCI Education. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 19, 4, Article 26 (Dec. 2012), 36 pages.
[22]
N. H. Ibrahim, J. Surif, A. H. Abdullah, and N. A. S. Sabtu. 2014. Comparison of pedagogical content knowledge between expert and novice lecturers in teaching and learning process. In 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering. 240--246.
[23]
Andrew J Ko. 2017. A three-year participant observation of software startup software evolution. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track. IEEE Press, 3--12.
[24]
Amy J Ko and Parmit K Chilana. 2011. Design, discussion, and dissent in open bug reports. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference. ACM, 106--113.
[25]
Amy J Ko and Richard E Ladner. 2016. AccessComputing promotes teaching accessibility. ACM Inroads 7, 4 (2016), 65--68.
[26]
Paul Luo Li, Andrew J Ko, and Andrew Begel. 2017. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on collaborations with software engineers. In Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 2017 IEEE/ACM 10th International Workshop on. IEEE, 2--8.
[27]
Thomas Mahatody, Mouldi Sagar, and Christophe Kolski. 2010. State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Intl. Journal of human--computer interaction 26, 8 (2010), 741--785.
[28]
D. Scott McCrickard, C. M. Chewar, and Jacob Somervell. 2004. Design, science, and engineering topics?: teaching HCI with a unified method. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31--35.
[29]
David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, 4 (1978), 515--526.
[30]
Yolanda Jacobs Reimer and Sarah A Douglas. 2003. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer science education 13, 3 (2003), 191--205.
[31]
Dana Schneider, Rebecca Lam, Andrew P Bayliss, and Paul E Dux. 2012. Cognitive load disrupts implicit theory-of-mind processing. Psychological Science 23, 8 (2012), 842--847.
[32]
Lee Shulman. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review 57, 1 (1987), 1--23.
[33]
Ernest T Stringer. 2007. Action Research (3e éd.). (2007).
[34]
Phil Turner and Susan Turner. 2011. Is stereotyping inevitable when designing with personas? Design studies 32, 1 (2011), 30--44.
[35]
Cathleen Wharton. 1994. The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. Usability inspection methods (1994).
[36]
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt. 1992. Action research in higher education: examples and reflections. ERIC.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Exploring Chinese teachers’ concerns about teaching artificial intelligence: the role of knowledge and perceived social goodAsia Pacific Education Review10.1007/s12564-024-10034-xOnline publication date: 10-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Toward Building Design Empathy for People with Disabilities Using Social Media Data: A New Approach for Novice DesignersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660687(3145-3160)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Debugging for Inclusivity in Online CS Courseware: Does it Work?Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671117(419-433)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICER '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 2018
307 pages
ISBN:9781450356282
DOI:10.1145/3230977
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 August 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. design methods
  2. inclusive design
  3. pedagogical content knowledge

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ICER '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

ICER '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 28 of 125 submissions, 22%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

ICER 2025
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 3 - 6, 2025
Charlottesville , VA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)235
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26
Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Exploring Chinese teachers’ concerns about teaching artificial intelligence: the role of knowledge and perceived social goodAsia Pacific Education Review10.1007/s12564-024-10034-xOnline publication date: 10-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Toward Building Design Empathy for People with Disabilities Using Social Media Data: A New Approach for Novice DesignersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660687(3145-3160)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Debugging for Inclusivity in Online CS Courseware: Does it Work?Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671117(419-433)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Beyond “Awareness”: If We Teach Inclusive Design, Will Students Act On It?Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671101(434-451)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • (2024)From Workshops to Classrooms: Faculty Experiences with Implementing Inclusive Design PrinciplesProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630861(1035-1041)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Crafting Disability Fairness Learning in Data Science: A Student-Centric Pedagogical ApproachProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630815(944-950)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Extreme Ungrading: Rewilding the Classroom through Human-Centered DesignExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3644048(1-9)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)The Matchmaker Inclusive Design Curriculum: A Faculty-Enabling Curriculum to Teach Inclusive Design Throughout Undergraduate CSProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642475(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)How to Measure Diversity Actionably in TechnologyEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_27(469-485)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • (2023)“Regular” CS × Inclusive Design = Smarter Students and Greater DiversityACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/360353523:3(1-35)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media