skip to main content
10.1145/3568813.3600117acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

CS Teaching and Racial Identities in Interaction: A Case for Discourse Analytic Methods

Published:10 September 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Motivation. Teachers can play a role in disrupting social inequities that are reflected in education, such as racial disparities in who succeeds in CS. Professional learning addressing inequities causes teachers to confront difficult topics, including how their own identities impact these problems. Understanding the differing ways teachers’ identities surface can provide insights into designing better supports for their professional learning.

Objectives. The goal of this paper is to examine the teaching and racial identities of two secondary CS teachers who participated in professional learning focused on combining CS content and equity pedagogy. The second goal of this paper is to demonstrate how discourse analytic methods can be used to examine interviews and other interactional data.

Method. Teachers were interviewed individually about their teaching identity, racial identity, and professional learning. Drawing on Bucholtz and Hall’s identity and interaction framework, interviews were examined for linguistic and discursive features reflecting positionality (i.e., how identity surfaces through the way individuals present themselves to and are perceived by others) and indexicality (i.e., various ways of referring to an identity).

Results. Participants used personal deictics, quotative markers, code choice, and affective and epistemic stances when discussing and negotiating their identities with the interviewer. The data reflected ways teachers problematized questions about teaching identity, negotiated tensions in their disciplinary identities, found the topic of race difficult to address, and highlighted other aspects of their identities relevant to understanding and discussing race.

Discussion.The study provides a demonstration of how discourse analytic methods can reveal nuances of teacher identity that may be overlooked with other qualitative approaches. Findings also revealed how teachers’ ethnic identities might be used as a lever in helping teachers discuss the difficult topic of race in education. Discourse analytic methods are encouraged for future CS education research focused on interactional analyses.

References

  1. Kate T Anderson and Jessica Holloway. 2020. Discourse analysis as theory, method, and epistemology in studies of education policy. Journal of Education Policy 35, 2 (2020), 188–221. Publisher: Taylor & Francis.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Charles Antaki, Michael Billig, Derek Edwards, and Jonathan Potter. 2003. Discourse analysis means doing analysis: a critique of six analytic shortcomings. (Jan. 2003). https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/Discourse_analysis_means_doing_analysis_a_critique_of_six_analytic_shortcomings/9473747/1 Publisher: Loughborough University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual review of Anthropology 29, 1 (2000), 447–466. Publisher: Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, PO Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0139, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ed Brockenbrough. 2012. Emasculation Blues: Black Male Teachers’ Perspectives on Gender and Power in the Teaching Profession. Teachers College Record 114, 5 (May 2012), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211400504 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mary Bucholtz. 2000. The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 10 (Sept. 2000), 1439–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Mary Bucholtz. 2007. Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies 9, 6 (Dec. 2007), 784–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607082580 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mary Bucholtz, Nancy Bermudez, Victor Fung, Lisa Edwards, and Rosalva Vargas. 2007. Hella Nor Cal or totally So Cal? the perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics 35, 4 (2007), 325–352. Publisher: Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7, 4-5 (Oct. 2005), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall. 2008. All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics1. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 4 (2008), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00382.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00382.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Rebecca Clift. 2016. Why that, now? Position and composition in interaction. In Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press, 64–94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Code.org, CSTA, and ECEP Alliance. 2020. 2020 State of Computer Science Education: Illuminating Disparities. Technical Report. https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Remy Dou, Karina Bhutta, Monique Ross, Laird Kramer, and Vishodana Thamotharan. 2020. The Effects of Computer Science Stereotypes and Interest on Middle School Boys’ Career Intentions. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 20, 3 (June 2020), 18:1–18:15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Barbara Ericson, M. Armoni, J. Gal-Ezer, D. Seehorn, C. Stephenson, and F. Trees. 2008. Ensuring exemplary teaching in an essential discipline: Addressing the crisis in computer science teacher certification. Technical Report. The Computer Science Teachers Association, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Joanna Goode, Allison Ivey, Stephany RunningHawk Johnson, Jean J. Ryoo, and Christine Ong. 2020. Rac(e)ing to computer science for all: how teachers talk and learn about equity in professional development. Computer Science Education 31, 3 (Sept. 2020), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1804772 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1804772.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Simon Goodman. 2017. How to conduct a psychological discourse analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 9, 2 (2017), 142–153. Publisher: University of Hertfordshire.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Caitlin Moriah Green. 2018. Toward Increased Retention in University Computer Science Programs a Language Socialization Approach. Ph. D. Dissertation. ProQuest LLC. ISBN: 9781085757966 Publication Title: ProQuest LLC ERIC Number: ED601339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Judith L. Green, Cynthia Brock, W. Douglas Baker, and Pauline Harris. 2020. Positioning Theory and Discourse Analysis: An Explanatory Theory and Analytic Lens. In Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning. Routledge. Num Pages: 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pamela L. Grossman and Susan S. Stodolsky. 1995. Content as Context: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching. Educational Researcher 24, 8 (Nov. 1995), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024008005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Douglas Harper. 2002. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17, 1 (Jan. 2002), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Rom Harré, Fathali M. Moghaddam, Tracey Pilkerton Cairnie, Daniel Rothbart, and Steven R. Sabat. 2009. Recent Advances in Positioning Theory. Theory & Psychology 19, 1 (Feb. 2009), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101417 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Linda Hobbs. 2013. Teaching ’Out-of-Field’ as a Boundary-crossing Event: Factors Shaping Teacher Identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11, 2 (April 2013), 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Helen H. Hu, Cecily Heiner, and Jay McCarthy. 2016. Deploying Exploring Computer Science Statewide. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education(SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Aleata Hubbard. 2017. Learning to Teach Computer Science: Qualitative Insights into Secondary Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Ph. D. Dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. https://www.proquest.com/openview/7af3a2b49cce1537fdc6ad2e32f0d148/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gail Jefferson and others. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation analysis (2004), 13–31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Sonia Koshy, Alexis Martin, Laura Hinton, Allison Scott, Bryan Twarek, and Kalisha Davis. 2021. The Computer Science Teacher Landscape: Results of a Nationwide Teacher Survey. Technical Report. Kapor Center and CSTA. https://www.kaporcenter.org/the-computer-science-teacher-landscape-results-of-a-nationwide-teacher-survey/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Elise Kärkkäinen. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (2007), 183–219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate. 1995. Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. Teachers College Record 97, 1 (1995), 47–68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Carol D. Lee. 2017. Expanding Visions of How People Learn: The Centrality of Identity Repertoires. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26, 3 (July 2017), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336022 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Adam Lefstein, Nicole Louie, Aliza Segal, and Ayelet Becher. 2020. Taking stock of research on teacher collaborative discourse: Theory and method in a nascent field. Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020), 102954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Julie A. Luft and Gillian H. Roehrig. 2007. Capturing Science Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs: The Development of the Teacher Beliefs Interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education 11, 2 (Jan. 2007). http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7794Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mary B. McVee. 2004. Narrative and the exploration of culture in teachers’ discussions of literacy, identity, self, and other. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 8 (Nov. 2004), 881–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Hugh Mehan. 1979. ‘What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into practice 18, 4 (1979), 285–294. Publisher: Taylor & Francis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. H. Richard Milner. 2007. Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen. Educational Researcher 36, 7 (Oct. 2007), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471 Publisher: American Educational Research Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Na’ilah Suad Nasir, Cyndy R. Snyder, Niral Shah, and Kihana Miraya Ross. 2012. Racial Storylines and Implications for Learning. Human Development 55, 5-6 (2012), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345318 Publisher: Karger Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Lijun Ni and Mark Guzdial. 2012. Who AM I?: Understanding High School Computer Science Teachers’ Professional Identity. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lijun Ni, Tom McKlin, Han Hao, Jake Baskin, Jason Bohrer, and Yan Tian. 2021. Understanding Professional Identity of Computer Science Teachers: Design of the Computer Science Teacher Identity Survey. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469766Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. E. Ochs. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Rethinking linguistic relativity, John J Gumperz and Stephen C Levinson (Eds.). Number 17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 407–437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin. 1979. Transcription as Theory. In Developmental pragmatics. Academic Press. file:///C:/northwestern/courses/07_fall_articles/CommStu_525_24/week06_ochs_transcription_as_theory.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Aneta Pavlenko. 2003. "I Never Knew I Was a Bilingual": Reimagining Teacher Identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 2, 4 (Oct. 2003), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_2 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Thomas M. Philip, Janet Rocha, and Maria C. Olivares-Pasillas. 2017. Supporting Teachers of Color as They Negotiate Classroom Pedagogies of Race: A Study of a Teacher’s Struggle with “Friendly-Fire” Racism. Teacher Education Quarterly 44, 1 (2017), 59–79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90003618 Publisher: Caddo Gap Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. J. Potter. 1998. Qualitative and discourse analysis. In Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, A.S. Bellack and M. Hersen (Eds.). Vol. 3. Pergamon, Oxford, 117–144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell. 1994. Analyzing Discourse. In Analyzing Qualitative Data, Alan Bryman and R. G. Burgess (Eds.). Routledge. Num Pages: 20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jodie Ranford. 2015. ’Pakeha’, Its Origin and Meaning. ACE Papers6: Graduate Student Work - Issues in Contemporary Education (April 2015). https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/25068 Accepted: 2015-04-10T02:09:32Z.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes, Melissa Mosley, Diane Hui, and Glynis O’Garro Joseph. 2005. Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of educational research 75, 3 (2005), 365–416. Publisher: Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Emanuel A Schegloff. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Vol. 1. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Deborah Schiffrin. 1994. Definitions of Discourse. In Approaches to Discourse (1st edition ed.), Deborah Schiffrin (Ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA, 20–43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2004. Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8, 2 (2004), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00257.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00257.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. James P. Spillane and Karen Seashore Louis. 2002. School Improvement Processes and Practices: Professional Learning for Building Instructional Capacity. Teachers College Record 104, 9 (April 2002), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810210400905 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Sneha Veeragoudar and Florence R. Sullivan. 2022. Equity-based CS Case Study: An Approach to Exploring White Teachers’ Conceptions of Race and Racism in a Professional Development Setting. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 22, 3 (June 2022), 28:1–28:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487332Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Janet DK Walkoe and Melissa J Luna. 2020. What we are missing in studies of teacher learning: A call for microgenetic, interactional analyses to examine teacher learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences 29, 2 (2020), 285–307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Stanton E. F. Wortham. 1996. Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 3 (1996), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00100-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. CS Teaching and Racial Identities in Interaction: A Case for Discourse Analytic Methods

    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 Other conferences
      ICER '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
      August 2023
      520 pages
      ISBN:9781450399760
      DOI:10.1145/3568813

      Copyright © 2023 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: 10 September 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)60
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format