skip to main content
10.1145/3408877.3432452acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Combating Social Injustice and Misinformation to Engage Minority Youth in Computing Sciences

Published:05 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Today students largely turn to social media to express opinions about various topics impacting our society (e.g. world events, government, politics, culture, etc.). The expanse of user-generated information available online can be a powerful influence both on the individual and large collectives of people. In recent years disinformation and misinformation on social media have been used to spread hate and divisiveness and, in extreme cases, incite violence. Now, more than ever, it is important to empower minority youth to be good cybercitizens by converting them from passive consumers of unreliable information to knowledgeable contributors of credible data. In this paper, we demonstrate the value of using social injustice as a means of engaging minority youth in computing and data sciences. We have identified effective methods of teaching high school students applied data analysis techniques that provide insight into issues directly affecting them, their families, and their communities. We believe this approach can be used to not only strengthen the pipeline to continued education and careers in computing fields, but also provide an alternative medium for action in a contentious world.

References

  1. Stephanie Edgerly, Emily K. Vraga, Leticia Bode, Kjerstin Thorson, and Esther Thorson. 2017. New Media, New Relationship to Participation? A Closer Look at Youth News Repertoires and Political Participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95, 1 (2017), 192--212. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077699017706928Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking. 2019. LikeWar: the weaponization of social media, Boston: Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin HarcourtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Morten Bay. 2018. Weaponizing the haters: The Last Jedi and the strategic politicization of pop culture through social media manipulation. First Monday (2018). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i11.9388Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Miriam J. Metzger. 2007. Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 13 (2007), 2078--2091. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew and Joel Breakstone and Teresa Ortega. 2016. Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Stanford Libraries (November 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Julie Coiro, Carla Coscarelli, Cheryl Maykel, and Elena Forzani. 2015. Investigating Criteria That Seventh Graders Use to Evaluate the Quality of Online Information. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literature (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. College Board. 2014. Change in AP® Exam Participation and Performance Over Time. THE 10TH ANNUAL AP REPORT TO THE NATION · SUBJECT SUPPLEMENT (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kara Smith, Sanja Jagesic, Jeff Wyatt, and Maureen Ewing. 2018. AP® STEM Participation and Postsecondary STEM Outcomes: Focus on Underrepresented Minority, First-Generation, and Female Students. The College Board (2018), 2--28Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E.r. Peterson, C. Rubie-Davies, D. Osborne, and C. Sibley. 2016. Teachers explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction 42 (2016), 123--140. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Armando Ordonez. 2014. Including user devices and context into STEM education for minorities. 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (2014). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2014.6891040Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. James A. Banks. 2004. Teaching for Social Justice, Diversity, and Citizenship in a Global World. The Educational Forum 68, 4 (2004), 296--305. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984645Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Yichun Xie and David Reider. 2013. Integration of Innovative Technologies for Enhancing Students? Motivation for Science Learning and Career. Journal of Science Education and Technology 23, 3 (2013), 370--380. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013--9469--1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Danielle Cummings, Loretta Cheeks, Rosario Robinson. Culturally-Centric Outreach and Engagement for Underserved Groups in STEM. In Proceedings of the 49th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '18, pages 447--452, New York, NY, USA, 2018. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Intelligence Summer Program for High School Girls. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '16, pages 303--308, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sarah Judd. All Means All: Bringing Project-based, Approachable AI Curriculum to More High School Students through AI4ALL Open Learning. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE ?20, page 1409, New York, NY, USA, 2020. ACMGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lauren Coffey. 2020. Tampa nonprofit works to bring AI to underprivileged students. (September 2020). Retrieved November 8, 2020 from https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/inno/stories/profiles/2020/09/23/tampa-nonprofit-works-to-bring-ai-to-students.html - (48)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. The ARTSI Alliance: Recruiting Underrepresented Students to Computer Science and Robotics to Improve SocietyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marie Vachovsky, Grace Wu, Sorathan Chaturapruek, Olga Russakovsky, Richard Sommer, and Li Fei-Fei. Towards More Gender Diversity in CS through an Artificial Intelligence Summer Program for High School Girls. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '16, pages 303--308, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mesut Duran, Margret Höft, Dan B. Lawson, Brahim Medjahed, and Elsayed A. Orady. 2013. Urban High School Students? IT/STEM Learning: Findings from a Collaborative Inquiry- and Design-Based Afterschool Program. Journal of Science Education and Technology 23, 1 (2013), 116--137. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013--9457--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Impact of an Engineering Mentorship Program on African-American Male High School Students Perceptions and Self-EfficacyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Beyond STEM, How Can Women Engage Big Data, Analytics, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence? An Exploratory Analysis of Confidence and Educational Factors in the Emerging Technology Waves Influencing the Role of, and Impact Upon, WomenGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennifer D. Adams, Preeti Gupta, and Alix Cotumaccio. 2014. Long-Term Participants: A Museum Program Enhances Girls' STEM Interest, Motivation, and Persistence. Afterschool Matters (2014), 14--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Franziska Marquart, Jakob Ohme, and Judith Möller. 2020. Following Politicians on Social Media: Effects for Political Information, Peer Communication, and Youth Engagement. Media and Communication 8, 2 (2020), 197--207. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2764Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ashley Lee. 2018. Invisible networked publics and hidden contention: Youth activism and social media tactics under repression. New Media & Society 20, 11 (2018), 4095--4115. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444818768063Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. #Ferguson: Yarimar Bonilla and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist 42, 1 (2015), 4--17. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/amet.12112Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United StatesGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Melissa Brown, Rashawn Ray, Ed Summers, and Neil Fraistat. 2017. #SayHerName: a case study of intersectional social media activism. Ethnic and Racial Studies 40, 11 (2017), 1831--1846. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1334934Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Russell Rickford. 2015. Black Lives Matter: Toward a Modern Practice of Mass Struggle. New Labor Forum 25, 1 (2015), 34--42. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1095796015620171Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Grace Baek and Taylor Mooney. 2020. LAPD not giving up on data-driven policing, even after scrapping controversial program. CBS News (February 2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mark P. Smith, Review of Selected Los Angeles Police Department Data-Driven Policing Strategies,12 March 2019, Inspector General, Police Commission to The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners, Intradepartmental Correspondence, BPC #19-0072.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. Roberts. 1997. Socioeconomic determinants of health: Children, inequalities, and health. Bmj 314, 7087 (1997), 1122--1122. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1122Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Chaney, C., Robertson, R.V. Racism and Police Brutality in America. J Afr Am St 17, 480--505 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-013--9246--5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Dottolo, A.L., Stewart, A.J. ?Don?t Ever Forget Now, You?re a Black Man in America?: Intersections of Race, Class and Gender In Encounters with the Police. Sex Roles 59, 350--364 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007--9387-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Armed and Dangerous? An Examination of Fatal Shootings of Unarmed Black People by Police, The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.8, no.4, September 2015Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ana Muniz. 2014. Maintaining Racial Boundaries: Criminalization, Neighborhood Context, and the Origins of Gang Injunctions. Social Problems 61, 2 (May 2014), 216--236. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2014.12095Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION Data Snapshot: College and Career Readiness https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarah Brayne, Alex Rosenblat, and Danah Boyd. 2015. Predictive Policing. DATA & CIVIL RIGHTS: A NEW ERA OF POLICING AND JUSTICE (October 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24928.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. P.Jeffrey Brantingham. 2018. The Logic of Data Bias and Its Impact on Place-Based Predictive Policing. OHIO STATE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW 15, 473 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Blakeslee, Sarah . "Evaluating Information -- Applying the CRAAP Test". SEP 17 2010. University of California at Chico's Meriam Library. Resource Handout.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Emma Pierson et al. 2020. A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour 4, 7 (2020), 736--745. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858--1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Patrick Triest. 2020. Exploring United States Policing Data Using Python. (June 2020). Retrieved March 30, 2020 from https://blog.patricktriest.com/police-data-python/ - EXPLORING UNITED STATES POLICING DATA USING PYTHONGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharad Goel, Justin M. Rao, and Ravi Shroff. 2015. Precinct or Prejudice? Understanding Racial Disparities in New York Citys Stop-and-Frisk Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal (2015). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2572718Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Paul R. Daugherty, James Wilson, and Runman Chowdhury. 2019. Using Artificial Intelligence to Promote Diversity. Cambridge 60, 2 (2019) Retrieved April 1, 2020 from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/using-artificial-intelligence-to-promote-diversity/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Peggy Doerschuk, Jiangjiang Liu, and Judith Mann. 2009. Increasing Participation of Females and Underrepresented Minorities in Computing. Computer 42, 4 (2009), 110--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Combating Social Injustice and Misinformation to Engage Minority Youth in Computing Sciences

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      March 2021
      1454 pages
      ISBN:9781450380621
      DOI:10.1145/3408877

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      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 the author(s) 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].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 March 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024
      SIGCSE Virtual 2024: ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference
      November 30 - December 1, 2024
      Virtual Event , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader