Computing Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) @ CUNY

Public Group active 2 months, 1 week ago

Computing Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) @ CUNY

Group logo of Computing Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) @ CUNY

Module 1 – Hunter

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
  • #139081

    Reply to this post with a response to the prompts below by the module due date.

    • Introduce yourself with your name, college, role(s)
    • Share the rationale cards you kept in your hand all the way to the end of the game. Why did you keep these to the end? Why did you discard particular cards?
    • What connections can you make between the values you reviewed and the examples from people’s digital lives?
    • How did you interact with the game? What worked / didn’t work about our game prototype? Did you follow the rules as written? Did you “tinker” with the algorithm (rules) of the game? If so, how?
    Brian Collins

    Hello, me again 😉 Brian Collins, Hunter College – Associate Prof of Bilingual Ed

    The cards that most resonated with me were related to the analytical aspect of computing and digital literacies.  I really liked card 14 which say that teacher my develop a curious debugging mindset that learns from and iterates on failure. Also card 20, it will help promote systems thinking – the ability to understand the dynamics of how to intervene in complex systems that are ubiquitous in our world.

    The other cards I kept were related to student engagement, card 43  supports more inquiry-based learning approaches and move away to the sage on the stage approach. Also related to equity card 9 and how tech is often developed by privileged groups with biases. I am thinking about how engaging our students with active tech project gives them ownership of their learning, no matter what future career they end up in (card 1)

    I liked the game, I am not sure if I did it right but it was a good activity to spark my thinking around what type of projects could be integrated into my classes that go beyond reading, reflecting, regurgitating!



    Hi Hunter Team,

    I tried to sort the cards into large themes – unfortunately, I didn’t read the article with the large themes first! Opps – I wanted to have one card from each of the larger themes that resonated with me – not sure if I achieved that goal – but, I had 20 as my number 1, systems thinking – then I had 8 participation in causes you care about, then 14 curious mind set. I felt like all of the awareness and security cards could have been combined into one card and have that card not be optional. I also liked the card about models and simulations.



    Hello, everyone!

    The five cards that I had left related to advocacy, equity, and the ability to use computing and digital tools to guide and support the diversity of student experiences and abilities. This summer, it is my goal to use technology as an important tool for developing equitable learning opportunities that promotes inclusion of diverse learners.

    A specific card that resonated with me stated that teachers need to be able to *interrogate* technology that may have the potential to be harmful because of the assumptions about marginalized students. Teachers should understand how to use digital technology, applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation and collaboration. This technology must be equitable, accessible, and inclusive to maximize the impact on student learning and development.

    ~ Carmen


    Hello everyone,

    Virginia Gryta, Hunter College, Lecturer in Special Education.

    I need to first share that I shuffled the deck – which as I went through and encountered cards that I thought might be similar to another I had kept of discarded I wondered if the order I was supposed to encounter the cards for the first time mattered. I did feel that my values were tested in the sense that I had to determine if what I had chosen previously was more aligned with my values than the new card on a similar topic. I didn’t read all of the directions first, but was instead going step by step so I did never have more than five cards in my “keep” sort but I didn’t pay attention to only keeping five in my “overflow.”

    I only had one card that was never swapped out. That’s 34, “meeting the needs of all learners” and “building on diverse experiences, resources and abilities” pretty much covered my values around equity and advocacy, meeting students where they are and celebrating difference.  Keeping this more broad card let me get specific in other cards I chose.

    Runners up that were held almost from the start were 24 (showing up and navigating healthy relationships and habits) and 18 (using computing as a creative outlet). Most of the courses I teach have an online component as do the teacher candidates I work with in their supervised teaching with me. For me, the ability to create and participate in digital environments where there is a sense of healthful community is really important to teach teachers how to do. I also teach a writing methods course for teaching students with disabilities and have seen kids who hate writing TRANSFORMED by digital storytelling so they see themselves as writers and have fun writing for the first time since the first teacher with a red pen corrected all of their grammar with no nod to the voice or theme or story.

    #s 41 (data practices help teachers) and #43 (boosting inquiry0-based learning vs. sage on a stage) were my other kept cards.  To me these were the best versions of “know what you’re doing, let teach help you do it well” and “use tech to help you make teaching and learning fun.”

    I’m super impressed with all of these varied rationals you came up with to make the game. It’s a great exercise!



    Hello, everyone!

    I tried to match the five cards I have left with the core values and projected impacts of CS education in Sara Vogel’s article, as follows:

    #5, Equity and social justice

    #8, Citizenship and civic engagement

    #15, School reforms and improvement

    #18 and #30, Personal agency, joy and fulfillment

    What resonated the most was #8 –teachers and students can use new media and computing as a tool for voice, participation, activism and critique related to causes they care about. This is similar to the importance of literacy education. Just like literacy, digital literacy and computational thinking give teachers students a voice and vision to participate and change the world we live in, instead of just being passive consumers of technology. To do so, teachers need to “get under the hood” (#15–I love this metaphor!) of digital tools in order to meet the needs of their students. This is similar to my belief that a teacher’s job is to create pathways between the predetermined curriculum and their diverse learners. Finally, I  agree wholeheartedly that computing is a creative outlet and a tool (#18), and that ultimately, we should aid to develop capacities for computational thinking for all learners.



    Hello all,

    I ended up with 10, 8, 26, 34 and 35. My choices most closely relate to two of the CS Values:

    1. Citizenship and Civic Engagement
    2. Equity and Social Justice

    These two values are related to one another. As a teacher of middle and high school students as well as teacher candidates in the TESOL department, literacy is central to my work. Today, digital literacy is an important piece of that. Developing students’ (and first, my own!) computing and digital literacy skills is vitally important as we strive to promote responsible consumption and creation of content and as we work to dismantle systems of oppression.



    Jennifer Gillespie  – Hunter College and City College – Supervisor and Adjunct Lecturer for Early Childhood Special Education

    Lucky numbers: 14, 16, 28, 41, 46

    I chose these cards with my area of focus in mind(early childhood special education). My teacher candidates have brought up questions in the past in regards to passive screen time (primarily videos), assessment technology, transfer of learning skills from educational computer games to tangible materials, assisted technology, and assessment using audio, video, and online tools (ex. TSG). I considered their resistance, enthusiasm, and curiosity as I picked my top 5 cards.

    I chose cards 14 (teachers develop curious mindset) and 16 (tinkering and wondering) because they represent the value and mindset of most early childhood teachers.  Discovery and growth occur through problem solving and seeing failure as opportunity.

    Card 28 (assistive technologies) suggests that teachers should learn more about technology in order to use the digital tool that best fits the students they are working with. By analyzing the learner’s unique needs and understanding the purpose and function of each tool, teachers can make informed decisions about individualizing with technology.

    Card 41 (data practices for learning about learners) aligns with my own personal passion of the data-informed instruction cycle. Computing and digital tools can be incredibly supportive for teachers as they learn to gather assessment data and analyze their data for future planning. The ability to use these tools depends on the teacher candidate’s understanding of the purpose and function of these technological tools. Looking further at the “how” and “why” of education technology reflects the same inquisitive process teachers should use to understand and support their unique learners.

    Card 46 (teachers as advocates) shows digital tools and technology as empowering. This supports engagement, participation, and meaningful use of technology for the betterment of teaching practices and student growth.

    I enjoyed that game as an alternative to reading a paper or completing a form. The interactive, tangible components felt like a more studious (and less spicy) Apples to Apples with quick intuitive responses.

    • Introduce yourself Imani Irving-Perez, Hunter College, Lecturer-Special Education
    • Share the rationale cards you kept in your hand all the way to the end: At the end I kept 9, 19, 22, 28 & 46. Based on the algorithm of the game, I kept the cards which had rationales that felt “directly relevant” to my work (and my educational philosophy). 
    • What connections can you make between the values you reviewed and the examples from people’s digital lives?  The values that I reviewed and chose, such as, equity, advocacy, universal design and problem solving, were closely reflected in several of the Padlet examples of people’s digital lives and engagements including “Social Justice and Computing Activities”-CS4All Equity, “Data for Black Lives”
    • How did you interact with the game? What worked / didn’t work about our game prototype? Did you follow the rules as written? Did you “tinker” with the algorithm (rules) of the game? If so, how? I began by shuffling the cards and I following the rules listed in the game. I decided to create a third “overflow” pile. Initially, I did not think I needed it, but as I read each card, it became harder to replace the cards I initially had in my hand. Out of my original cards, I kept 3 are replaced 2. There were 15 cards in the “overflow” pile and the remainder were in the “discard” pile. The game seemed to work and I do not believe that I tinkered with the game, though I was tempted to just go with the cards I initially picked without going through each card. Yet, I decided to go through each card, because I was committed to picking card that “best” reflected my work/philosophy-rather than leaving it to chance. As I am typing this, in reflection, perhaps I did tinker a bit with the algorithm by adding another condition in picking cards. Sticking with cards that reflected both my work (per the rules) and educational philosophy (not per the rules), can certainly be considered rule bending 🙂 . 


    Kristen here.  In playing the game I held on to cards 8, 16, 35, 45, and 46.  These cards ended up being the ones I hung on to because they connect to motivation (16) and engagement (8).  As a special educator these are central issues to teaching learners that may not learn or engage in the same way as others.  I look to engage and motivate my students.  Additionally the cards I kept provide options for communication (45), sustaining cultural and linguistic practices (35) and equity and advocacy (46).  These are all issues I see as central to the role of teaching when connecting with students and families.

    When playing the game I initially reviewed it as a solo activity reading through the cards and moving through a yes, no and maybe pile.  After a round of this I played according to the directions with the results above.  I pulled a few of the rationales and discussed them with a few educator friends to discuss offerings at their schools related to the rationale and hear another perspective.  This part I enjoyed very much as it helped me see how one’s setting or role could impact their decision.  I notice this in the responses on the discussion board, too.


    Dominika McPartland (she/her) TESOL Hunter College

    I somehow ended up with the 30s – after careful review (no, I didn’t follow the rules).

    33,35,36,37,38 – They all spoke about collaboration in the digital age in order to facilitate inquiry, research, build communities, sustain cultural and linguistic practices. I see computational thinking as part of our daily lives, however, I also see the struggle of making these tools drive social mobility and advancement instead of impeding it. I am here to collaborate in finding the ways to use these tools very intentionally.

    See you soon, Dominika


    I’m Jody from Hunter and I’m a professor in literacy.
    In true Jody fashion…I didn’t read the game directions and just started playing. My approach was different. I read through the cards and then kept the first 5 I appreciated. Then I would drop a card if I found one that resonated with me more. At some point, I think I had 8 cards. I eliminated based on cards that somewhat overlapped and said the same thing–and ultimately chose the ones that were more specific to my values.
    My final cards were #5: Leveling the playing field for lower-resourced schools. As someone who has worked with the NYCDOE for over two decades, I find this to be such an important goal for all of us.
    #8: Using computing for voice and activism. All my assessments with my high school students and with my college students are about writing for change–and so this one seemed to really align with the kinds of tasks I ask my students to engage in.
    #9: Change the status quo of who is designing tech. As an activist, I love grassroots work–but we cannot see real deep change until we start changing systems. This value seemed aligned with the work.
    #34: Meet the needs of diverse learners! Critical.
    #35: Sustaining cultural, linguistic, and neurological practices of students. I love that Paris and Alim’s work was folded into the computing values. It frames the way I approach all my pedagogy.


    Hi everyone! I’m Alfonso Pérez, Clinical Professor in the Bilingual Education Program. The 5 rationale cards that I kept were:

    (8) teachers and students can use new media and computing as a tool for voice, participation, activism and critique related to causes they care about.

    (16) because the process of tinkering and making can lead to wonder, discovery, and enjoyment for students and teachers.

    (17) because collaboration on computing/digital literacies projects leads to meaningful relationships both among peers as well as adults.

    (18) teachers and their students should be able to use computing as a creative outlet and a tool for digital storytelling, expression, identity development, art.

    (25) it is important for teachers and students to know how to build a learning community in digital environments.

    Reviewing these cards, I notice the themes of wonder, discovery, creativity, expression, and community. I was a science teacher in NYC for many years, and I find it interesting that many of the vision cards resonated deeply with my goals and philosophy in science education. However, I work with bilingual ed teacher candidates in my current role at Hunter, and I’m thinking about ways to integrate digital literacies with critical bilingual pedagogies this summer. Thus, the cards that I picked in the end looked different than the cards I would have picked if I were still an elementary or middle school science teacher.

    I enjoyed this card game tremendously, and I must admit, I tinkered quite a bit with the rules… I skimmed through all the cards and picked the top ten cards that resonated with me. The next day, I added five more cards for a total of 15 cards. The next day, I shuffled and looked through the 15 cards I picked and eliminated five of them, one by one. The following day, I took away five more cards, until I was left with five cards in my hand. I think that looking at these cards over several days made the selection process feel less ovewhelming, and it allowed me to reflect on the cards that align with my values at this particular moment.


    So, before I do the card thing (I’m still haunted by the vicious papercut they gave me when I opened them a few weeks back), I want to jot down my “why” and see if there is a card (or a series of cards) that match this sentiment.

    I’m a big believer that just because we can DO a thing doesn’t mean we know how to effectively teach it. Every soccer player doesn’t know how to coach. Every foodie doesn’t know how to teach others how to cook well. Just ’cause you might have been an effective teacher in the PreK-12 classroom doesn’t necessarily mean you know how to teach (pre-service/veteran) educators!

    …and, of course…just because we know how to use tech. as critical consumers doesn’t mean we can effectively teach our students (of all ages) to do the same. My why (and our collective learning curve) this summer is figuring out how to narrow the gap between:

    My tech-literacy as a teacher and human [          gap         ] The tech-literacy of my students

    and hey, this goes both ways! I’m always learning from my students and am looking for ways to improve my tech-skills and knowledge so that I move (and my students move) from feeling comfortable tinkering (I low-key hate this word, makes me think of tinkling 💦) with a new tech tool and actually feeling confident  that I can incorporate its use into my daily life, somehow.


    i’m baaaaaack with no further injuries, hooray.  Okay so:

    Share the rationale cards you kept in your hand all the way to the end of the game. Why did you keep these to the end? Why did you discard particular cards?

    I didn’t find any ONE card that specifically spoke to the phenomenon I’m interested in (as summarized above), but I discarded those that didn’t feel relevant to my mission and held onto cards which, taken together, spoke to my ‘why’:

    • Card 6: It’s a ‘Program or Be Programmed’ world out there where tech governs a lot of our choices and we all need more critical computational literacy
    • Card 43: Helps usher in more project and inquiry-based learning approaches that move us away from the ‘sage-on-the-stage’ approach.
    • Card 41: Data practices like collection, analysis, and visualization support teachers with learning about learners and their communities, as well as how we plan, assess, and reflect on our teaching practices
    • Card 36: helps teachers learn how to build on students’ tech lives, interests, and language practices = better designs and adaptations to our curriculum so that they will match this (new) knowledge
    • Card 39: Facilitates teachers’ tinkering and experimentation with new tools and approaches

    What connections can you make between the values you reviewed and the examples from people’s digital lives?

    After successfully jumping the paywall (thanks CUNY!), I quickly skimmed the NYT article posted by Sara on Padlet about ChatGPT and AI being critically examined at a high school called Young Women’s Leadership School of the Bronx. The points made in this article are relevant to the cards I chose and the values that resonate with me.

    How did you interact with the game? What worked / didn’t work about our game prototype? Did you follow the rules as written? Did you “tinker” with the algorithm (rules) of the game? If so, how?

    I quickly broke the algorithm/rules of this game because I wanted to be able to go through all the cards before deciding which I liked more than others (there were so many!). I found myself creating a ‘matrix’ spread-out on my dining table of ones I felt super-drawn towards / those I was lukewarm about / those that I didn’t feel connected to much at all.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.