skip to main content
research-article

Co-Designing AI Literacy Exhibits for Informal Learning Spaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

AI is becoming increasingly integrated in common technologies, which suggests that learning experiences for audiences seeking a "casual" understanding of AI-i.e. understanding how a search engine works, not necessarily understanding how to program one-is an increasingly important design space. Informal learning spaces like museums are particularly well-suited for such public science communication efforts, but there is little research investigating how to design AI learning experiences for these spaces. This paper explores how to design museum experiences that communicate key concepts about AI, using collaboration, creativity, and embodiment as inspirations for design. We present the design of five low-fidelity AI literacy exhibit prototypes and results from a thematic analysis of participant interactions during a co-design workshop in which family groups interacted with the prototypes and designed exhibits of their own. Our findings suggest new topics and design considerations for AI-related exhibits and directions for future research.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Dor Abrahamson and Arthur Bakker. 2016. Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive research: principles and implications 1, 1: 33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Edith Ackermann. 2004. Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. A learning zone of one's own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments 1: 15--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives 31, 2: 211--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sue Allen. 2004. Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education 88, 1: S17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Sue Allen, Patricia B Campbell, Lynn D Dierking, Barbara N Flagg, Alan J Friedman, Cecilia Garibay, and David A Ucko. 2008. Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. In Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop. The National Science Foundation, Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Morgan G Ames. 2018. Hackers, Computers, and Cooperation: A Critical History of Logo and Constructionist Learning. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW: 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Roya Jafari Amineh and Hanieh Davatgari Asl. 2015. Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages 1, 1: 9--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alissa N Antle, Greg Corness, and Allen Bevans. 2013. Balancing justice: Comparing whole body and controller-based interaction for an abstract domain. International Journal of Arts and Technology 6, 4: 388--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ars Electronica Futurelab. 2019. Understanding AI. Retrieved from https://ars.electronica.art/aeblog/en/2019/08/06/understanding-ai-futurelab-installations/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Constance Barlow and Barry L Hall. 2007. What about feelings?: A study of emotion and tension in social work field education. Social Work Education 26, 4: 399--413.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Leslie Bedford. 2014. The Art of Museum Exhibitions: How story and imagination create aesthetic experiences. Left Coast Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Margaret A Boden. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2: 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Leah Buechley, Mike Eisenberg, Jaime Catchen, and Ali Crockett. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08), 423--432. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357123Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Timothy Charoenying. 2013. Graph hopping: learning through physical interaction quantification. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 495--498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nikolaus Correll, Chris Wailes, and Scott Slaby. 2014. A One-hour Curriculum to Engage Middle School Students in Robotics and Computer Science using Cubelets. In Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems. Springer, 165--176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kate Crawford and Trevor Paglen. 2019. Training Humans. Retrieved from http://www.fondazioneprada.org/project/training-humans/?lang=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Joshua A Danish, Noel Enyedy, Asmalina Saleh, and Megan Humburg. 2020. Learning in embodied activity framework: a sociocultural framework for embodied cognition. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 15, 1: 49--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Smith, and Rune Veerasawmy. 2010. Participatory design at the museum: inquiring into children's everyday engagement in cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, 72--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Daniella DiPaola, Blakeley H Payne, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2020. Decoding design agendas: an ethical design activity for middle school students. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Zachary Dodds, Lloyd Greenwald, Ayanna Howard, Sheila Tejada, and Jerry Weinberg. 2006. Components, curriculum, and community: Robots and robotics in undergraduate AI education. AI magazine 27, 1: 11--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Willem Doise, Gabriel Mugny, and Juan-Antonio Pérez. 1998. The social construction of knowledge: Social marking and socio-cognitive conflict. The psychology of the social 77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul Dourish. 2004. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Stefania Druga, Sarah T.Vu, Eesh Likhith, and Tammy Qiu. 2019. Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Allison Druin, Benjamin B Bederson, Juan Pablo Hourcade, Lisa Sherman, Glenda Revelle, Michele Platner, and Stacy Weng. 2001. Designing a digital library for young children. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 398--405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Madeleine Clare Elish. 2019. Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 5: 40--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Noel Enyedy, Joshua A Danish, Girlie Delacruz, and Melissa Kumar. 2012. Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning 7, 3: 347--378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. John H Falk and Lynn D Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. William R Frey, Desmond U Patton, Michael B Gaskell, and Kyle A McGregor. 2020. Artificial intelligence and inclusion: Formerly gang-involved youth as domain experts for analyzing unstructured Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review 38, 1: 42--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Helen L Gallagher and Christopher D Frith. 2003. Functional imaging of "theory of mind.' Trends in cognitive sciences 7, 2: 77--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. William Gaver. 2011. Making spaces: how design workbooks work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1551--1560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 937--946.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Erving Goffman. 2008. Behavior in public places. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Norma González, Luis C Moll, and Cathy Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Google. 2021. Experiments with Google. AI Experiments. Retrieved January 7, 2020 from https://experiments.withgoogle.com/collection/aiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David Gunning. 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Joshua P Gutwill and Sue Allen. 2010. Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education 94, 4: 710--742.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Mark Guzdial. 2013. Exploring Hypotheses about Media Computation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 19--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Christian Heath and Dirk vom Lehn. 2008. Configuring "Interactivity" Enhancing Engagement in Science Centres and Museums. Social Studies of Science 38, 1: 63--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Rafael Lozano Hemmer. 2015. Level of Confidence. Retrieved from http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/artworks/level_of_confidence.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Suzanne Hidi and K Ann Renninger. 2006. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist 41, 2: 111--127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jon Hindmarsh, Christian Heath, Dirk Vom Lehn, and Jason Cleverly. 2005. Creating assemblies in public environments: Social interaction, interactive exhibits and CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14, 1: 1--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Michael S Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, R Jordan Crouser, and Robert JK Jacob. 2009. Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 975--984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Michael S. Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Robert JK Jacob. 2008. Tangible programming and informal science learning: making TUIs work for museums. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children, 194--201. Retrieved October 31, 2015 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1463756Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Eva Hornecker. 2005. A design theme for tangible interaction: embodied facilitation. In ECSCW 2005, 23--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 437--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Eva Hornecker and Luigina Ciolfi. 2019. Human-computer interactions in museums. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 12, 2: i--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Thomas Humphrey, Joshua Gutwill, and The Exploratorium APE Team. 2005. Fostering Active Prolonged Engagement: The Art of Creating APE Exhibits. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Mizuko Ito, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, and S Craig Watkins. 2013. Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Shahedul Huq Khandkar. 2009. Open coding. University of Calgary 23: 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott R Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, 140--149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Sheila Krogh-Jespersen, Kimberly A Quinn, William Leo Donald Krenzer, Christine Thi Nguyen, Jana Greenslit, and Aaron Price. 2020. Exploring the Awe-some: Mobile eye-tracking insights into awe in a science museum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Annabel Lindner, Stefan Seegerer, and Ralf Romeike. 2019. Unplugged Activities in the Context of AI. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, 123--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Lucas Liu, Duri Long, and Brian Magerko. 2020. MoViz: A Visualization Tool for Comparing Motion Capture Data Clustering Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Movement and Computing, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Daria Loi, Thomas Lodato, Christine T Wolf, Raphael Arar, and Jeanette Blomberg. 2018. PD manifesto for AI futures. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial-Volume 2, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, Nicholas Davis, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Designing for Socially Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Creativity and Cognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, and Brian Magerko. 2019. Designing Co-Creative AI for Public Spaces.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Duri Long, Tom McKlin, Anna Weisling, William Martin, Steven Blough, Katlyn Voravong, and Brian Magerko. 2020. Out of Tune: Discord and Learning in a Music Programming Museum Exhibit. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC'20). https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394430Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Duri Long, Tom McKlin, Anna Weisling, William Martin, Hannah Guthrie, and Brian Magerko. 2019. Trajectories of Physical Engagement and Expression in a Co-Creative Museum Installation. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3325505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Martin Ludvigsen. 2005. Designing for social use in public places--A conceptual framework of social interaction. Proceedings of Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, DPPI 5: 389--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Caitlin Lustig. 2019. Intersecting Imaginaries: Visions of Decentralized Autonomous Systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW: 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom McKlin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott McCoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-Based Approach for Underrepresented Populations in High School Computer Science Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 4: 14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2886418Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Ann Mintz. 2005. Science, society and science centres.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago. 2018. Robot Revolution. Retrieved from https://www.msichicago.org/explore/whats-here/exhibits/robot-revolution/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomohiro Nishida, Susumu Kanemune, Yukio Idosaka, Mitaro Namiki, Tim Bell, and Yasushi Kuno. 2009. A CS unplugged design pattern. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1: 231--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Lorelli S Nowell, Jill M Norris, Deborah E White, and Nancy J Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16, 1: 1609406917733847.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Hyunjoo Oh, Anisha Deshmane, Feiran Li, Ji Yeon Han, Matt Stewart, Michael Tsai, Xing Xu, and Ian Oakley. 2013. The digital dream lab: tabletop puzzle blocks for exploring programmatic concepts. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction, 51--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Marina Papastergiou. 2008. Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school students' perceptions and career choices. Computers and Education 51, 2: 594--608.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Aaron Price and B Pernot. 2015. Educational & Demographic Backgrounds of Guests on the Museum Floor. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. ReadyAI. 2020. Cozmo as a Self-Driving Car Exhibit at Carnegie Science Center. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XygLnR1Gd8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Kafai, Yasmin. 2009. Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM 52, 11: 60--67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Jessica Roberts and Leilah Lyons. 2017. Scoring Qualitative Informal Learning Dialogue: The SQuILD Method for Measuring Museum Learning Talk. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Kasper Rodil, Matthias Rehm, and Antonia Lina Krummheuer. 2018. Co-designing social robots with cognitively impaired citizens. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 686--690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Liz Sanders. 2012. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design pdf by.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Joe Saunders, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kheng Lee Koay, Nathan Burke, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. "Teach Me--Show Me"-end-user personalization of a smart home and companion robot. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 46, 1: 27--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Ben Rydal Shapiro, Rogers P Hall, and David A Owens. 2017. Developing & using interaction geography in a museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 12, 4: 377--399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Zoe Skinner, Stacey Brown, and Greg Walsh. 2020. Children of Color's Perceptions of Fairness in AI: An Exploration of Equitable and Inclusive Co-Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Matthew Smith, Christian Szongott, Benjamin Henne, and Gabriele Von Voigt. 2012. Big data privacy issues in public social media. In 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Scott S Snibbe and Hayes S Raffle. 2009. Social immersive media: pursuing best practices for multi-user interactive camera/projector exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1447--1456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Karen Sullenger. 2006. Beyond School Walls: Informal Education and the Culture of Science. Education Canada 46, 3: 15--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Elisabeth Sulmont, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Jeremy R Cooperstock. 2019. Can You Teach Me To Machine Learn? In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 948--954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. The Barbican. 2019. AI: More Than Human. Retrieved from https://www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/ai-more-than-humanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Peter Tolmie, Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Tom Rodden, and Stuart Reeves. 2014. Supporting group interactions in museum visiting. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 1049--1059.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. David Touretzky, Christina Gardner-McCune, Fred Martin, and Deborah Seehorn. 2019. Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. David S Touretzky. 2017. Computational thinking and mental models: From kodu to calypso. In Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B), 2017 IEEE, 71--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Greg Walsh, Alison Druin, Mona Leigh Guha, Elizabeth Foss, Evan Golub, Leshell Hatley, Elizabeth Bonsignore, and Sonia Franckel. 2010. Layered elaboration: a new technique for co-design with children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1237--1240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Greg Walsh and Elizabeth Foss. 2015. A case for intergenerational distributed co-design: the online kidsteam example. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y Lim. 2019. Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Henry M Wellman, David Cross, and Julanne Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child development 72, 3: 655--684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Linda L. Werner, Brian Hanks, and Charlie McDowell. 2004. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 4, 1: 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Niels Wouters, John Downs, Mitchell Harrop, Travis Cox, Eduardo Oliveira, Sarah Webber, Frank Vetere, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2016. Uncovering the honeypot effect: How audiences engage with public interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 5--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Jason C Yip, Tamara Clegg, June Ahn, Judith Odili Uchidiuno, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Austin Beck, Daniel Pauw, and Kelly Mills. 2016. The evolution of engagements and social bonds during child-parent co-design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3607--3619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Xiaofei Zhou, Jessica Van Brummelen, and Phoebe Lin. 2020. Designing AI Learning Experiences for K-12: Emerging Works, Future Opportunities and a Design Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Suzanne Reeve, and Philip Bell. 2010. Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education 94, 3: 478--505.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 493--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Abigail Zimmermann-Niefield, Makenna Turner, Bridget Murphy, Shaun K Kane, and R Benjamin Shapiro. 2019. Youth Learning Machine Learning through Building Models of Athletic Moves. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 121--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Co-Designing AI Literacy Exhibits for Informal Learning Spaces

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!