Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities
Abstract
There have been many efforts to increase access and participation of indigenous communities in computer science education using ethnocomputing. In this paper, we extend culturally responsive computing by using electronic textiles that leverage traditional crafting and sewing practices to help students learn about engineering and computing as they also engage with local indigenous knowledges. Electronic textiles include sewable microcontrollers that can be connected to sensors and actuators by stitching circuits with conductive thread. We present findings from a junior high Native Arts class and an academically-oriented summer camp in which Native American youth ages 12-15 years created individual and collective e-textile designs using the LilyPad Arduino. In our discussion we address how a culturally responsive open design approach to ethnocomputing with e-textile activities can provide a productive but also challenging context for design agency and cultural connections for American Indian youth, and how these findings can inform the design of a broader range of introductory computational activities for all.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These 16 studies focused on increased participation or retention of females, minorities, or other underrepresented populations in STEM fields.
“These studies focused on increased participation or retention of females (Mason, Cooper, & Comber, 2011;Master et al., 2017;Terry, Briggs, & Rivale, 2011), minorities (Kafai, Searle, Martinez, & Brayboy, 2014;Searle, Fields, Lui, & Kafai, 2014;Shatz, Pieloch, & Shamieh, 2016;Zimmerman, Johnson, Wambsgans, & Fuentes, 2011) or other underrepresented populations in STEM fields (Dorsey & Howard, 2011;”
From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Kafai, Searle, Martinez, & Brayboy, 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019) · Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) · doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research
Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Funds of Knowledge in STEM Education: A Scoping Review
Denton, M., & Borrego, M. (2021) · Studies in Engineering Education · doi:10.21061/see.19 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Roque, R., Tamashiro, M. A., Mcconnell, K., & Granados, J. (2021) · Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3459990.3460728 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-03-05
- Pages
- 241-246
- OpenAlex
- W1981318718
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of Pennsylvania
- Arizona State University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Indigenous and Place-Based Education
- Keywords
- smart textiles, indigenous knowledge, Native American youth, computer science education, conductive threads, design agency, open design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review