Public Group active 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Computing Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) @ CUNY

Computing Integrated Teacher Education is a four-year initiative to support CUNY faculty at all ranks to integrate state standards aligned computing content and pedagogy into required education courses, field work and student teaching. Supported by public funding from the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) Computer Science for All (CS4All) program and private funding from the Robin Hood Learning + Technology Fund, the initiative will focus on building on and complementing the success of NYCDOE CS4All and pilots to integrate computational thinking at Queens College, Hunter College and Hostos Community College.

The initiative focuses on:
– Supporting institutional change in teacher education programs
– Building faculty computing pedagogical content knowledge through the lens of culturally response-sustaining education
– Supporting faculty research in equitable computing education, inclusive STEM pedagogies, and effects on their students’ instructional practices

Module 6 — Hunter College

  • Background

    The CITE Equity Working group has put together some resources to support faculty to think about equity in the context of designing CITE Artifacts


    • Feel free to annotate our document on Manifold with any noticings, wonderings, resources, and ideas you have as you review it! You will need to go to this site and create an account:

    Then, come back here and share your responses to any number of these prompts:

    • What are some noticings / wonderings you have about how we’ve framed equity in CITE? Any feedback for us?
    • Where do you see connections between the spotlights you read last week and the ideas shared about equity in this week’s resources?
    • What are some of the inequities that you are interested in tackling as you design and roll out CITE artifacts?
    • After reading this, where do you think you might challenge yourself to go next?
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Something I noticed when exploring the Equitable CITE Pedagogy on Manifold was some of the language and phrases found in shifting through equity discourse.  I found myself nodding along with equity as access.  As a special educator, I have noticed where inequity shows up in connection to ability, and this often is part of access to inclusive spaces, high-quality resources, and peers.   Here I wonder how the college can support this type of equity through tech tool offerings that provide increased access to students to meet expectations set by standards.  I see progress here, but clearly, there is more work to do.

    I also noticed the mention of Dr. Gholdy Muhammad in connection to laboratory social justice projects.  I am a member of Hunter’s Equity and Advocacy committee and Dr. Muhammad was our gust lecturer this year.  She spoke twice to groups about projects they can bring into the classroom that connect to current social and political moments and teach students to respond to oppression in school. Here I wondered how I can continue with her work in teacher preparation courses.  Can her Historically Responsive framework be used for unit plan writing? How does joy find its way into coursework?

    In thinking about Dr. Muhammad and joy I noticed further down the page the intentions of the  Equitable CITE pedagogy as ones that 

    – empower learners and communities

    – promote joyful, meaningful learning

    – transform institutions toward justice

    Here I am wondering how the work of our E&A committee can use these intentions to push Hunter forward with justice.   I would also like to talk about these intentions as part of a course and ask students what they think it means to be empowered and promote learning that is joyful. I see part of this work as sharing the power and the stage.  Asking students to co-create joyful learning experiences with me.   I’d like to use the personal reflection example as a guide to having my students share their thinking and experience.  Here I would like to offer choice through writing, speaking, or journey mapping as part of the work.   This feels like an opening activity and would be perfect to try in the a fall course.


    This was a good point to read and review the components of equity and how it  overlaps with our CITE artifacts. As this was something I have been contemplating in how my project will integrate equity. My first thoughts are around the final product allowing student to analyze and evaluate access to different schools and the inherent inequities. Though after reading the Equitable CITE Pedagogy and the related resources I see a lot is more related to the process more the product. Many of the approaches are more about mindsets, co-learning, and co-constructing. I appreciate that we are practicing some of these this summer and will try to incorporate it in my classes more. I sometimes haven’t included group work and sharing as much as I want to give student the chance to work independently but I am appreciating the discussions and sharing opportunities and see how they are related to the Liberatory Design approach, specifically – building relational trust, practice self-awareness, work with fear and discomfort. I recognize how important these can be in creating equity.

    While reding through the framework, I reflected on some of the similarities of effective course design and how I aspire to organize my seminar syllabi.  During the semester, I have formal structures to ask for feedback, modify sessions and adapt sessions based on learners’ needs.  This commitment to improvement from students’ feedback  is similar to the principles from “co-learning and co-constructing knowledge.”

    I also firmly believe in the value of evaluating process as well as product.  This framework made me think back to a few faculty spotlights, specifically the critical analysis of social media and the data evaluation and analyses.  These activities were equity centered and aligned with the framework as they empowered students as creators and evaluators of technologies not just consumers.  I am very interested in tacking similar aspects and aspire to create a module that empowers/ positions  learners as creators, editors, and  critical consumers.

    Hi, everyone!

    The activities and readings this summer have been illuminating and educational. I came into this project with what I believed to be a straightforward assignment that would integrate technology to help guide students in supporting the mathematical development of students in K-2. Beginning with the “why’ and the CITE values cards game, I came to realize this is so much more AND I have work to do!

    A recurring theme for me is how to dismantle racism and systems of oppression in the early childhood classroom as it relates to mathematics instruction. There is a lot to unpack as I first have to encourage students to reflect on their own biases to begin transforming their instructional practices. This includes examining their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics to young children. I initially believed it was fear that students were avoiding engaging with K-2 students for their case study. I have come to realize, through the readings and interactions with the previous CITE artifacts, that this may only be a small part of it.

    The lack of early and sustained access to technology, STEM and computing education is real in the communities and educational settings are students participate in during their course of study. I am hoping to be a catalyst for student enlightenment and growth as it relates to anti-oppression ideologies and embody the principles that Ghouldy Muhammad stated – educators should be “responsive to the social and political times” and teach students to respond to oppression.

    My goal is to create an artifact that supports students in understanding what it means to be an anti-racist/anti-bias early childhood math educator with the responsibility and accountability to support all learners at all developmental levels. I also want to bring back the *joy* of teaching and learning that seems to be lost post-pandemic.

    ~ Carmen

    When reading through the CS4All Executive Summary, I found the exploration of why there were inequities in implementing more CS curriculum to be quite interesting. Though the initial correlation was drawn between student demographics and level of CS participation and access, the report unpacked this further discussing the need level of students, school priorities for standardized testing and other academic subjects, and integration of CS in different age bands. As I consider how to support my teacher candidates in using technology to promote equity, it is important to help them look further into the data to consider the variables and contexts that impact their students.

    In “Equitable CITE Pedagogy”, the statistics for students with disabilities in CS highlighted the importance of early and sustained access. As my teacher candidates support students in early childhood with special needs, they can be empowered to teach their students computational thinking and digital literacy within their own classrooms. The barriers for this are often seen as lack of financial resources and a stronger emphasis on meeting the ELA and Math goals on the IEPs and for the curriculum. Technology can also appear as “brain-rotting screen time” in early childhood when teachers don’t fully grasp the foundations of computational thinking and how to use technology to promote content and skill learning through interactive methods and exploration.

    The tinkering activity for Dr. Smith offers excellent examples of how to use computational thinking for multiple age bands. The examples provided, particularly the preschool activities from Digital Promise, take a topic that teacher candidates are comfortable teaching and gives concrete ways of scaffolding the experience to build important understanding of CS foundations. The teachers I’ve worked with in schools with higher-needs students are overwhelmed by testing pressure, limited resources, and school priorities to have the students quickly catch-up to curriculum standards. This can lead to resistance to new methods that feel as though they increase the workload (and cognitive load). The revisions in PD agendas to address specific implementation barriers mentioned in CS4All had me reconsider how I would use my artifact to address the barriers my teachers candidates experience in their practicum and fieldwork sites.


    In reading through the Equitable CITE Pedagogy, there were several key points that resonated with me. One was the idea of attempts to leverage technology in education to benefit all ultimately further exacerbating inequities. When so much went online at the onset of COVID, this idea was amplified as educators discussed limited access to technology in low-income neighborhoods. Thinking about equity in a variety of ways through CITE is exciting. The goals and design principles were fun to explore in the interactive version of the document. The design principles around co-learning and co-constructing knowledge in communities and the idea of giving students space and time to tinker – to support learner agency in that way – are principles I would like to be sure to include in my artifact. Like many of the artifacts that were reviewed, I can imagine that I will focus on designing learning experiences around students’ interest and needs. My goal will be to move away from leading with the technology.
    I like the “Moves to support” sections and will be going back to those as I continue to think about this work.

    There are a lot of things that resonated with me – both in terms of reviewing the CS4All Equity Impact Report (2023) and the Equitable CITE Pedagogy.

    1. In terms of the initial report I valued the attempt to combine technology education with larger notions of CRT – including bringing into the dialogue – the works of Dr. Betinna Love, Dr. Gholdy Muhammad, and Zaretta Hammond. This resonated with me because the approach (particularly research and data collection) is similar to a project I am also part of that started with the NYCDOE Office of Special Projects and is now part of larger effort connection CRT, SEL within all four arts disciplines across the Nation.
    2. In terms of the CITE Pedagogy – I also value how some of this earlier work is also taken on within some of the goals (around joy (a key feature of  Dr. Gholdy Muhammad, looking critically at the historical underpinnings of texts/artifacts  (something Dr. Love talks about) as well as creating a community of collaborative learners (and producers)  – something Emdin situates in his notion of Reality Pedagogy. These are all complex – but I think CITE has laid it out in a very clear way – that allows some aspect of ‘praxis’ for me – in that I can look at these different ‘spaces-worlds’ – and balance that with my own understanding and work.

    I was super impressed with the documents that came out of the CITE Equity Working Group. It can be really challenging–yet so incredibly powerful–to really think through what an organization is about and this clearly was done with great collaboration and thought and criticality. (I also appreciated that the work is offered in different modalities and in going through all of them, I was able to pick up new ideas based on the format alone.). For me several things stood out:
    The quality of the GOALS (to Empower learners, promote joyful learning, transform institutions for justice)
    –I was struck by the intersections of both joy and justice here, something that Bettina Love, Yolanda Sealey Ruiz, and Gholdy Muhammad all ask us to do when we are considering our curriculum and instruction and engagement with youth.
    The quality of the APPROACHES (Affirming learner-centred design processes and Cultivating equity-focused mindsets (Practice self-awareness, Recognize oppression, Seek liberatory collaboration, Work with fear and discomfort, Work to transform power).
    –I love the mindsets which have come up in previous modules; these are all really powerful ways in which to transform spaces.
    While I am still intimidated by the computational aspect of some of the faculty spotlights, I’m eager to take my own passion and expertise in equity and literacy and figure out how to intersect that with technology. I’m excited for the possibilities!!

    Dr. Betinna Love, Dr. Gholdy Muhammad,  Sharroky Hollie, Zaretta Hammond and Vygotsky’s work is so clearly visible in Equitable CITE pedagogy guidelines.  I am siding with the goal of Promote joyful, meaningful learning,  the statement “Joy and meaning can emerge in learning as students sustain flow states in their “zone of proximal development,” make personal and social connections, and overcome challenges in the learning process, resonates so much with what I want to see in my own students as well as their students. The faculty spotlights that I examined definitely aimed at providing joyous but engaging (cognitively) activities Plotting plots (in short)  encouraged students to identify different language patterns and based on that discuss the plot of the novel. I found this approach to reading a novel so much more engaging and fun than just good old reading a novel. The inequities that I would like to tackle is assuring that the design of a lesson is cognitively engaging, but also brings joy of learning. We need teacher candidates who are equipped to design lessons and units that are cognitively demanding but also bring the joy of learning the new language along with content.

    One of the teaching practices that resonated most with me was “Adopting expansive notions of learning”. We talk a lot about the importance of valuing students’ funds of knowledge and our students’ computing and digital literacies are certainly an important part of that more so now than ever before. We also talk a lot about providing students with holistic assessments, student choice and creating multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate learning. However, for my teacher candidates they are expected to more or less produce the same product at the end of the semester. I wonder how I can work to incorporate more holistic assessments into my syllabus. 


    The “Behind the Data” spotlight that I explored last week was very much aligned with Equitable CITE Pedagogy Framework. Not only did it ask students to use data to analyze inequities but it allowed them to choose how to represent their findings using different data visualization tools. This supports learner agency and centers creativity.


    It is always a delight to learn new digital tools and put them to use, as done in the module with Manifold. Seeing how colleagues highlighted and annotated the text, sharing ideas, noticings and wonderings made the process of reading the text even more enjoyable!

    What are some noticings / wonderings you have about how we’ve framed equity in CITE? Any feedback for us?

    The CITE working group has framed equity as a central component and/or anchoring theme of the project. Equity is broken down into many different components, beginning with goals, which is then broken down into approaches and then further into design principle and moves. I appreciated the team sharing of the process of creating the Equitable CITE Pedagogy, understanding not only the rationale of the work, but also understanding that the inequities had to be unpacked as a team, closely looking into how technology “can foster injustice” and then essentially reverse engineering the use of the technology and tools to foster justice. 

    What are some of the inequities that you are interested in tackling as you design and roll out CITE artifacts?

    The inequities that I am most interested in tackling are the issues of access of technology, most specifically the tools, to marginalized groups with the hopes of increasing participation in meaningful ways. As an early childhood educator, it is extremely important that both children and families become more aware of how the technological tools can be used to close the digital literacy gap for both children and families alike. The technological learning curve can feel daunting and/or overwhelming for the families that have not been exposed to the tools prior to their children entering school. Therefore I can understand why CITE made “Joy”  and “success” a significant part of the learning goals. In preparing to tackle the access and participation, it will be essential to roll out an artifact that is enjoyable, empowering and meaningful for teacher candidates, and the children and families that they serve. 

    After reading this, where do you think you might challenge yourself to go next?

    After reading this, I now feel more confident about focusing on creating an artifact that is unifying, usable,  meaningful and fun for myself, as the creator, my teacher candidates, their families and their children. I am now challenging myself to reflect on daily classroom processes in early childhood and think of ways that using technology can enhance the daily lived experiences for all stakeholders/participants involved.

    I came into this process with a different idea of what this project entailed. I have been challenged to understand computational thinking and how it relates to equitable outcomes for all our students. Through this process, I have found my shortcomings in understanding technology and expanded my conceptualizations of what should be considered computational thinking. These ideas have been further challenged by framing these understandings through the CITE equity lens.

    The materials/readings positioned the framework and its relevance, in the context of the policies that led to the deployment of  CS4All in NYC. I found it extremely valuable to start this module by reading the CS4All: Examining Equity in Computer Science Access and Participation in NYC Schools to understand the background of the problem we faced at a macro level. One of the most surprising aspects of the DOE’s approach to the CS4All implementation is the reliance on scholarly research regarding developing equity-focused CS teachers. The idea of providing teachers the time, space, and tools to get to know their own cultural lens, inside and outside of the classroom’s biases using anchor work by Dr. Lanson-Billings, Dr. Hammond, and others, was inspirational and made me question how we could implement this more broadly in our courses.  With this context, I appreciated how the implementation report intersected with the Equitable CITE Pedagogy: Putting it into Praxis document.

    One of the aspects of the CITE document that stands out for me is the seamless integration of approaches, designs, and moves aligned to support the framework’s third goal: Transforming institutions toward justice. However, the document also makes it evident that the learner is at the center of this transformation, which requires creativity and, ultimately, joy. As I tinker with many (all, really) of the artifacts presented in the spotlight, I can see how each can ignite reflection and learning, as well as spark joy among the students. I can’t wait to utilize these tools with my own students to bring these principles to light.

    For me, advocacy should be at the center of the early childhood field. One of the problems I would like to tackle with this project is the inequitable distribution of resources in our schools, depending on neighborhood and settings (public vs. non-public). Using data could be a powerful tool to teach students to reflect on what is happening on the ground, and to question policies that affect the lives of teachers. I’m excited to learn more about using tech tools to teach my students how to be critical consumers of data and reimagine what early childhood education could be.


    I am glad to have this module to think about the meaning of equity and to read your posts. All of the reading made me think about how useful the JEDI framework is for gaining clarity and shared meaning – I wondered if we might begin to develop action steps for our teacher-candidates to add to this document through our CITE applications. It seems like this is a great common document for us to connect our CITE work to.


    I really liked that from the first orientation, it has been abundantly clear that the CITE program adopts equity lenses and ideas and strives to prepare teachers to teach and learn ABOUT, WITH, THROUGH and AGAINST technology. From the last few modules, it is obvious that the equity lenses were used in design principles and mindsets.

    In my work with teachers and their students, promoting equity means always putting students at the center. Whether we are implementing a new curriculum, a new pedagogical approach, a new learning structure, or integrate technology, we need to start with students and their needs. Therefore, “center and affirm learners” really resonates. I’ll make sure that in encouraging teachers in my courses to Integrate digital literacy and computational thinking, we should never lose sight of the learners and their needs. Secondly, equity work must also include recognizing and naming inequity and systems of oppression. This is similar to my teaching of revision in writing. If learners don’t recognize what needs to be revised, just applying revision strategies doesn’t address the root of the problem. Finally, I am glad that joy is in CITE pedagogy. How can it not? To me, an engaging and sustaining part of CITE is having fun with new (to me) programs like Scratch and Flipgrid.  What’s challenging, at this point, is thinking about how to make it fun and joyful for the teachers and their students as they teach and learn about, with, through and against technology.


    Have you guys seen a version of this visualization of equity? It helps us imagine the ways that our (past) thinking about ‘leveling’ the playing field have not gone far enough to address systemic injustice that stretches back generations before technology was invented.

    In this module, I learned that one of the findings from CSforAll was that “schools not offering CS in New York City generally served higher-needs students, including English language learners, students with disabilities, low-income students, and students who were not proficient in math or English language arts

    I’m sure this quote reminds you, as it does me, of both of our CUNY students and the DOE schools they work in or will soon work in.

    I’m thinking, still, of the Critical Digital Literacies work that Dr. Laura Ascenzi-Moreno did to get her students (and, by extension, their bilingual students) to put their daily-digital-media consumption under careful scrutiny and how this is something we can do with any population and at any age.

    Bilingual Ed Teacher Candidates were asked to analyze their Instagram feeds and ask themselves/reflect on the following questions:

    • Who is the narrator? What is their point of view?​
    • Which groups of people are represented and which groups of people are not represented?​
    • What do you think the narrator is trying to convey about a particular group of people, an individual or an institution?​
    • Do you agree or disagree with the narrator’s representations? Why or why not?​
    • What’s the setting?​
    • Is this a single story or a story to consider alongside many others?

    This is tied to DEI and it’s also tied to this muscle that we all could benefit from strengthening — how do we challenge ourselves to critically examine the digital media we fill our time with? How can we both strengthen this skill, ourselves, and help our students do the same?

    I’m excited to see what English language learning can come out of these discussions while also strengthening critical thinking and awareness of systemic injustice and unearned privileges that shape so much of our experience in this city, country, and world.

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.