In the U.S. there are steady efforts by governmental and philanthropic organizations to increase the representation of students of colour in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). After years of mixed results, researchers and educators have started to question one size fits all notions of broadening participation. An increasing number of projects are challenging universalist assumptions by enrolling the expertise of culturally situated communities of practice in STEM lessons and the educational technologies that support them. While this research shows promising results for improving young people’s interest and performance in STEM, there has been little research on how these lessons and technologies might also benefit the communities whose expertise were originally enrolled. This paper details the design of educational technologies that bridge STEM and African American cosmetology. We report on a mixed-methods research project, conducted with a group of predominantly African American cosmetologists. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected to study their attitudes toward STEM before and after working with the technologies. Our results suggest positive changes in the cosmetologists’ attitudes. We end with a critical discussion about respecting the knowledge systems of underrepresented communities of practice in educational technology research and development.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Banks, I. (2000). Hair matters: Beauty, power, and black women’s consciousness. New York, NY: NYU Press.
2. Babbitt, W., Lachney, M., Bulley, E., & Eglash, R. (2015). Adinkra mathematics: A study of ethnocomputing in Ghana. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 110-135.
3. Bennett, A. (2016). Ethnocompuational creativity in STEAM education: A cultural framework for generative justice. Teknokultura, 13(2), 587-612.
4. Bennett, A., Eglash, R., Lachney, M., & Babbitt, W. (2016). Design agency: Diversifying computer science at the intersections of creativity and culture. In M. Raisinghani (Ed.), Revolutionizing Education through Web-Based Instruction (pp. 35–56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
5. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Eglash, R., Bennett, A., O Donnell, C., Jennings, S., & Cintorino, M. (2006). Culturally situated design tools: Ethnocomputing from field site to classroom. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.347
7. Eglash, R. (1999). African fractals: Modern computing and indigenous design. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8. Eglash, R., Babbitt, W., Bennett, A., Bennett, K., Callahan, B., Davis, J., Drazan, J., Hathawa, C., Hughes, D., Krishnamoorthy, M., Lachney, M., Mascarenhas, M., Sawyer, S., & Tully, K. (2017). Culturally Situated Design Tools: Generative justice as a foundation for STEM diversity. In P. Tripathi, Y. Rankin, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Moving Students of Color from Consumers to Producers of Technology (pp. 132–151). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2005-4.ch007
9. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Multicultural education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10. Henderson, M. (2015). The (mis) use of community of practice: Delusion, confusion, and instrumentalism in educational technology research. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on technology and education (pp. 127–140). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Lachney, M. (2017). Culturally responsive computing as brokerage: Toward asset building with education-based social movements. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 420-439.
12. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol. 521423740). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Majors, T. J. (2015). Shoptalk: Lessons in teaching from an African American hair salon. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
14. Malcom, S. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. E. (2013). Critical mass revisited: Learning lessons from research on diversity in STEM fields. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 176–178.
15. Margolis, J., Holme, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Nao, K., & Stumme, S. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Race, education, and computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Marx, S. (2016). Qualitative Research in STEM: Studies of Equity, Access, and Innovation. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20. Patel, L. (2015). Countering coloniality in educational research: From ownership to answerability. Educational Studies, 50(4), 357–377.
21. Pawley, A. L., & Slaton, A. E. (2015, June). The Power and Politics of STEM Research Design: Saving the ‘Small N’. Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. doi: 10.18260/p.24901
22. Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Rosen, J. H., Newsome, A., & Usselman, M. (2011, June). Promoting Diversity and Public School Success in First Lego League State Competitions. Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/18880
24. Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
25. Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436.
26. Simpson, A. (2014). Mohawk interruptus: Political life across the borders of settler states. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27. Solomon, C. (1988). Computer environments for children: A reflection on theories of learning and education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Tarlo, E. (2016). Entanglement: The secret lives of hair. London, UK: Oneworld Publications.
29. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-Words: Refusing Research. In Paris, D., & Winn, M. T. (Eds.), Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities (pp. 223-247). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.