This is an outdated version published on 2023-12-31. Read the most recent version.

Design Considerations for Facilitating Equitable Participation in an Ethical Data Science Course for High School Students


  • Jordan Register University of North Carolina at Charlotte



data science, ethics, cultural participation, social norms for discourse, privilege hazard


The emergence of data science, Big Data Analytics, and other related methodologies have resulted in differential outcomes for people situated differently in society. Exacerbating these effects is the privilege hazard (D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020) that occurs when teams of data scientists are composed primarily of individuals from privileged backgrounds. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to understand how educators may support students from different backgrounds (both relatively privileged and marginalized) to participate equitably and meaningfully in ethical data science discussions in order to safeguard against the privilege hazard. To do this, we draw on the literature regarding STEM identity formation, use Cobb and Yackel’s (1996) framework for analyzing social norms for discourse in inquiry-based classrooms, and draw on Hodge and Cobb’s Cultural Participation Orientation towards developing an inclusive classroom environment. Finally, we describe the course design elements (task structures, participation structures, and discursive moves) that supported students’ equitable participation in ethical data science discussions (Sandoval, 2004).


Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self ver-sus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763.

Andersson, C., & Register, J. (2023). An examination of pre-service mathematics teachers’ ethical reasoning in Big Data with considerations of access to data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior.

Atweh, B. (2013). Is the good a desire or an obligation? The possibility of ethics for mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 27

Atweh, B., & Brady, K. (2009). Socially response-able mathematics education: Implications of an ethical approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 267-276.

Bakker, A., & Van Eerde, H. A. A.(2014). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Doing qualitative research: methodology and methods in mathematics education. Springer.

Bartell, T. G. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 129-163.

Becker, J. R. (1995). Women’s ways of knowing in mathematics. Equity in mathematics educa-tion: Influences of feminism and culture, 163-174.

Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and sci-ence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260.

Castro, A. R., & Collins, C. S. (2021). Asian American women in STEM in the lab with “White Men Named John”. Science Education, 105(1), 33-61.

Cobb, P., & Whitenack, J. W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of class-room video recordings and transcripts. Educational studies in mathematics, 30(3), 213-228.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational psychologist, 31(3-4), 175-190.

Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identi-ties that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathe-matics Education, 40, 40-68.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039

D'ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT press.

Ernest, P. (2018). The ethics of mathematics: is mathematics harmful?. In The philosophy of mathematics education today (pp. 187-216). Springer, Cham.

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Har-vard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social Prob-lems, 12(4), 436–445.

Gould, R., Machado, S., Ong, C., Johnson, T., Molyneux, J., Nolen, S., Tangmunariunkit, H., Trusela, L., Zanontian, L., (2016). Teaching data science to secondary students: The mo-bilize introduction to data science curriculum. In J.Engel (Ed.), Promoting understand-ing of statistics about society. Proceedings of the Roundtable Conference of the Interna-tional Association of Statistics Education (IASE). Berlin.

Grunspan, D., Eddy, S., Brownell, S., Wiggins, B., Crowe, A., & Goodreau, S. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology class-rooms. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148405.

Harper, F. K. (2019). A qualitative metasynthesis of teaching mathematics for social justice in action: Pitfalls and promises of practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-tion, 50(3), 268-310.

Heinemann, B., Opel, S., Budde, L., Schulte, C., Frischemeier, D., Biehler, R., Podworny, S., & Wassong, T. (2018). Drafting a data science curriculum for secondary schools. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '18). Article 17, 1–5. Association for Computing Machinery, NY.

Hodge, L. L., & Cobb, P. (2019). Two views of culture and their implications for mathematics teaching and learning. Urban Education, 54(6), 860-884.

Jansen, A. (2020). Rough-Draft Thinking and Revising in Mathematics. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(12), e107-e110.

Kokka, K. (2020). Social justice pedagogy for whom? Developing privileged students’ critical mathematics consciousness. The Urban Review, 52(4), 778-803.

Larnell, G. V. (2013). On “new waves” in mathematics education research: Identity, power, and the mathematics learning experiences of all children. New Waves—Educational Research and Development, 16(1), 146-156.

Lee, H., Mojica, G., Thrasher, E., & Vaskalis, Z. (2020). The data investigation process, In In-vigorating Statistics Teacher Education through Professional Online Learning, Friday In-stitute for Educational Innovation: NC State University. Available at:

Lee, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lee, S. J. (2006). Additional complexities: Social class, ethnicity, generation, and gender in Asian American student experiences. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 9(1), 17–28.

Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

McGee, E. (2018). “Black genius, Asian fail”: The detriment of stereotype lift and stereotype threat in high-achieving Asian and Black STEM students. AERA Open, 4(4), 2332858418816658.

Milner, H. R. (2012). But What is Urban Education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.

Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.

Museus, S. D. (2014). Asian American students in higher education. Routledge.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. In Algorithms of Oppression. New York Univer-sity Press.

O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threat-ens democracy. Crown.

Reinke, L., Stephan, M. & Register, J. (2022). Designing instructional sequences for ethical, critical and mathematical reasoning. [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psy-chology of Mathematics Education [PMENA].

Register, J.T., Stephan, M., Pugalee, D. (2021). Ethical reasoning in mathematics [ERiM]: New directions for didactics in U.S. mathematics education. Mathematics.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637–655.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.

Riegle-Crumb, C., Peng, M., & Russo-Tait, T. (2020). Committed to STEM? Examining factors that predict occupational commitment among Asian and White female students complet-ing STEM US postsecondary programs. Sex Roles, 82(1), 102-116.

Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educa-tional designs. Educational psychologist, 39(4), 213-223.

Sfard, A., and A. Prusak. 2005. Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher 34, no. 4: 14–22.

Shah, N. (2019). “Asians are good at math” is not a compliment: STEM success as a threat to personhood. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 661–686.

Shrake, E. K. (2006). Unmasking the self: Struggling with the model minority stereotype and lotus blossom image. In G. Li, & G. H. Beckett (Eds.), “Strangers” of the academy: Asian women scholars in higher education (pp. 163–177). Stylus.

Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a critical mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathe-matics, 27(1), 35-57.

Solomon, Y., Lawson, D., & Croft, T. (2011). Dealing with ‘fragile identities’: resistance and refiguring in women mathematics students. Gender and Education, 23(5), 565-583.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math per-formance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.

Stephan, M., Register, J., Reinke, L., Robinson, C., Pugalenthi, P., Pugalee, D. (2020). People use math as a weapon: Critical mathematics consciousness in the time of COVID-19. Educational Studies in Mathematics.

Varnum, M. E. W., Grossman, I., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences in cognition: The social orientation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 19(1), 9–13.

Wilson, L. S. (1992). The benefits of diversity in the science and engineering workforce. Science and engineering programs: On target for women, 1-14.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. doi:10.2307/749877

YouCubed (2020). YouCubed K-12 Data Science.