skip to main content
10.1145/3325480.3325504acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Designing Co-Creative AI for Public Spaces

Published: 13 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly pervasive in our everyday lives. There are consequently many common misconceptions about what AI is, what it is capable of, and how it works. Compounding the issue, opportunities to learn about AI are often limited to audiences who already have access to and knowledge about technology. Increasing access to AI in public spaces has the potential to broaden public AI literacy, and experiences involving co-creative (i.e. collaboratively creative) AI are particularly well-suited for engaging a broad range of participants. This paper explores how to design co-creative AI for public interaction spaces, drawing both on existing literature and our own experiences designing co-creative AI for public venues. It presents a set of design principles that can aid others in the development of co-creative AI for public spaces as well as guide future research agendas.

References

[1]
Sue Allen. 2004. Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education 88, 1 (2004), S17.
[2]
Alissa N Antle, Greg Corness, and Milena Droumeva. 2009. Human-computer-intuition? Exploring the cognitive basis for intuition in embodied interaction. International Journal of Arts and Technology 2, 3 (2009), 235--254.
[3]
Ben Bengler and Nick Bryan-Kinns. 2014. In the wild: evaluating collaborative interactive musical experiences in public settings. In Interactive experience in the digital age. Springer, 169--186.
[4]
Zafer Bilda, Ernest Edmonds, and Linda Candy. 2008. Designing for creative engagement. Design Studies 29, 6 (2008), 525--540.
[5]
Margaret A. Boden. 2003. The Creative Mind - Myths and Mechanisms (2. ed.). Routledge.
[6]
Anne Bogart and Tina Landau. 2004. The Viewpoints Book: A Practical Guide to Viewpoints and Composition . Theatre Communications Group, New York : St. Paul, MN.
[7]
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). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 423--432.
[8]
Erin A. Carroll, Celine Latulipe, Richard Fung, and Michael Terry. 2009. Creativity factor evaluation: towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. ACM, 127--136. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1640255
[9]
John William Charnley, Alison Pease, and Simon Colton. 2012. On the Notion of Framing in Computational Creativity. In ICCC. 77--81.
[10]
Tanya L Chartrand and John A Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: the perception--behavior link and social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology 76, 6 (1999), 893.
[11]
Luigina Ciolfi and Liam Bannon. 2002. Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits: Enhancing visitor curiosity through augmented artefacts. In Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Citeseer.
[12]
Simon Colton. 2008. Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems. In AAAI spring symposium: creative intelligent systems, Vol. 8.
[13]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2008. Flow : the psychology of optimal experience (1st harper perennial modern classics ed. ed.). Harper Perennial, New York.
[14]
Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Brenda Lin, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Creative sense-making: Quantifying interaction dynamics in co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 356--366.
[15]
Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Co-creative drawing agent with object recognition. In Twelfth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference .
[16]
Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Empirically studying participatory sense-making in abstract drawing with a co-creative cognitive agent. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . ACM, 196--207.
[17]
Stefania Druga. 2018. Cognimates: from coding to teaching machines. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
[18]
Upol Ehsan, Pradyumna Tambwekar, Larry Chan, Brent Harrison, and Mark Riedl. 2019. Automated Rationale Generation: A Technique for Explainable AI and its Effects on Human Perceptions . arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03729 (2019).
[19]
Gary W Evans. 1995. Learning and the physical environment. Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (1995), 119--126.
[20]
John H Falk and Lynn D Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press.
[21]
Rebecca Fiebrink and Perry R Cook. 2010. The Wekinator: a system for real-time, interactive machine learning in music. In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2010)(Utrecht).
[22]
Gerhard Fischer, Elisa Giaccardi, Hal Eden, Masanori Sugimoto, and Yunwen Ye. 2005. Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63, 4--5 (2005), 482--512.
[23]
Wayne C Fredrick and Herbert J Walberg. 1980. Learning as a function of time. The journal of educational research 73, 4 (1980), 183--194.
[24]
William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 937--946.
[25]
J.J. Gibson. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing, R.E. Shaw and J Bransford (Eds.). Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
[26]
Kazjon Grace and Mary Lou Maher. 2016. Surprise-Triggered Reformulation of Design Goals. In AAAI. 3726--3732.
[27]
Joshua P Gutwill. 2003. Gaining visitor consent for research II: Improving the posted-sign method. Curator: The Museum Journal 46, 2 (2003), 228--235.
[28]
Mark Guzdial. 2013. Exploring Hypotheses about Media Computation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research . ACM, San Diego, CA, USA, 19--26.
[29]
Danielle B Harlow, Ron Skinner, and Sean O'Brien. 2017. Roll It Wall: Developing a framework for evaluating practices of learning. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. ACM, 14.
[30]
Christian Heath and Dirk Vom Lehn. 2008. Configuring'Interactivity' Enhancing Engagement in Science Centres and Museums . Social Studies of Science 38, 1 (2008), 63--91.
[31]
Robert Hodson. 2007. Interaction, improvisation, and interplay in jazz. Routledge.
[32]
Guy Hoffman and Gil Weinberg. 2010. Shimon: an interactive improvisational robotic marimba player. In CHI'10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3097--3102.
[33]
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. ACM, 194--201. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1463756
[34]
Eva Hornecker and Matthias Stifter. 2006. Learning from interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments. ACM, 135--142.
[35]
Sherry Hsi and Holly Fait. 2005. RFID enhances visitors' museum experience at the Exploratorium . Commun. ACM 48, 9 (2005), 60--65.
[36]
Thomas Humphrey, Joshua Gutwill, and The Exploratorium APE Team . 2005. Fostering Active Prolonged Engagement: The Art of Creating APE Exhibits . Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
[37]
Mikhail Jacob. 2017. Towards Lifelong Interactive Learning For Open-ended Embodied Narrative Improvisation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 502--507.
[38]
Mikhail Jacob, Gaëtan Coisne, Akshay Gupta, Ivan Sysoev, Gaurav Verma, and Brian Magerko. 2013. Viewpoints AI. In Proceedings of the Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE '13). AAAI, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
[39]
Mikhail Jacob and Brian Magerko. 2018. Creative arcs in improvised human-computer embodied performances. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, 62.
[40]
Björn Jensen, Nicola Tomatis, Laetitia Mayor, Andrzej Drygajlo, and Roland Siegwart. 2005. Robots meet humans: Interaction in public spaces. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 52, 6 (2005), 1530--1546.
[41]
Ken Kahn and Niall Winters. 2017. Child-friendly programming interfaces to AI cloud services. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 566--570.
[42]
Anna Kantosalo, Jukka M Toivanen, Ping Xiao, and Hannu Toivonen. 2014. From Isolation to Involvement: Adapting Machine Creativity Software to Support Human-Computer Co-Creation. In ICCC. 1--7.
[43]
Allan Kaprow and Mimsy Lee. 1966. On Happenings . The Tulane Drama Review 10, 4 (1966), 281--283.
[44]
Karen Johanne Kortbek and Kaj Grønbæk. 2008. Communicating art through interactive technology: new approaches for interaction design in art museums. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges. ACM, 229--238.
[45]
Hatice Kose-Bagci, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Chrystopher L Nehaniv. 2008. Emergent dynamics of turn-taking interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. In 17th IEEE Int. Symp. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2008 (RO-MAN'08). IEEE.
[46]
Carolyn Lamb, Daniel G Brown, and Charles LA Clarke. 2018. Evaluating Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Tutorial . ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51, 2 (2018), 28.
[47]
H Chad Lane, Mark G Core, Michael Van Lent, Steve Solomon, and Dave Gomboc. 2005. Explainable artificial intelligence for training and tutoring. Technical Report. University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies.
[48]
Pat Langley, Ben Meadows, Mohan Sridharan, and Dongkyu Choi. 2017. Explainable Agency for Intelligent Autonomous Systems. In AAAI. 4762--4764.
[49]
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
[50]
Eugene L Lawler and David E Wood. 1966. Branch-and-bound methods: A survey. Operations research 14, 4 (1966), 699--719.
[51]
Antonios Liapis, Georgios N Yannakakis, and Julian Togelius. 2013. Sentient Sketchbook: Computer-aided game level authoring. In FDG. 213--220.
[52]
Lian Loke and George Poonkhin Khut. 2014. Intimate aesthetics and facilitated interaction. In Interactive Experience in the Digital Age. Springer, 91--108.
[53]
Duri Long, Sanjana Gupta, Jessica Brooke Anderson, and Brian Magerko. 2017. The Shape of Story: A Semiotic Artistic Visualization of a Communal Storytelling Experience . (2017).
[54]
Duri Long, Hannah Guthrie, and Brian Magerko. 2018. Don't steal my balloons: designing for musical adult-child ludic engagement. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 657--662.
[55]
Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, Nicholas Davis, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Designing for socially interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 39--50.
[56]
B. Magerko, C. DeLeon, and P. Dohogne. 2011. Digital Improvisational Theatre: Party Quirks. AAAI Press, Reykjavík, Iceland.
[57]
B. Magerko, J. Freeman, T. McKlin, M. Reilly, E. Livingston, S. McCoid, and A. Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based Approach for Underrepresented Populations in High School Computer Science Education . ACM Transactions on Computing Education 16, 4 (2016).
[58]
Michael Mateas. 2001. Expressive AI: A hybrid art and science practice. Leonardo 34, 2 (2001), 147--153.
[59]
Michael Mateas and Kate Compton. 2015. Casual Creators. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity . 228--235.
[60]
Michael Mateas, Steffi Domike, and Paul Vanouse. 1999. Terminal time: An ideologically-biased history machine. AISB Quarterly, Special Issue on Creativity in the Arts and Sciences 102 (1999), 36--43.
[61]
Marek P Michalowski, Selma Sabanovic, and Hideki Kozima. 2007. A dancing robot for rhythmic social interaction. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 89--96.
[62]
MinKyung Lee Amit Elazari Bar On Eric Gilbert Karrie Karahalios Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro. 2019. User Attitudes towards Algorithmic Opacity and Transparency in Online Reviewing Platforms. In ACM CHI 2019.
[63]
Lizzie Muller and Ernest Edmonds. 2006. Living laboratories: making and curating interactive art. SIGGRAPH 2006 Electronic Art and Animation Catalog (2006), 160--163.
[64]
Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Constellation.
[65]
Chris Olah, Arvind Satyanarayan, Ian Johnson, Shan Carter, Ludwig Schubert, Katherine Ye, and Alexander Mordvintsev. 2018. The building blocks of interpretability. Distill 3, 3 (2018), e10.
[66]
Jeff Pressing. 1988. Improvisation: methods and models. In Generative processes in music, John Sloboda (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Canada, 129--178.
[67]
Gabriëlle Ras, Marcel van Gerven, and Pim Haselager. 2018. Explanation methods in deep learning: Users, values, concerns and challenges. In Explainable and Interpretable Models in Computer Vision and Machine Learning. Springer, 19--36.
[68]
Derek Reilly, Fanny Chevalier, and Dustin Freeman. 2014. Blending art events and HCI research. In Interactive Experience in the Digital Age. Springer, 153--168.
[69]
Mônica m Ribeiro and Agar Fonseca. 2011. The empathy and the structuring sharing modes of movement sequences in the improvisation of contemporary dance. Research in Dance Education 12, 2 (2011), 71--85.
[70]
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.
[71]
Yvonne Rogers. 2012. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18, 4 (2012), 58--62. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1978834
[72]
Sarah Rubidge. 2002. Digital Technology in Choreography: Issues and Implications. In Published in the Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium of the Dance Society of Korea, Seoul, Korea .
[73]
R Keith Sawyer. 2006. Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music 34, 2 (2006), 148--165.
[74]
R Keith Sawyer and Stacy DeZutter. 2009. Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts 3, 2 (2009), 81.
[75]
Donald A Schön. 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
[76]
Stephanie Shine and Teresa Y Acosta. 2000. Parent-Child Social Play in a Children's Museum . Family Relations 49, 1 (2000), 45--52.
[77]
Daniel L Silver, Qiang Yang, and Lianghao Li. 2013. Lifelong Machine Learning Systems: Beyond Learning Algorithms. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Lifelong Machine Learning, Vol. 13. 05.
[78]
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. ACM, 1447--1456.
[79]
Carlota Torrents, Marta Casta ner, Mária Dinuu sová, and M Teresa Anguera. 2010. Discovering new ways of moving: Observational analysis of motor creativity while dancing contact improvisation and the influence of the partner. The Journal of Creative Behavior 44, 1 (2010), 53--69.
[80]
David Touretzky, Christina Gardner-McCune, Fred Martin, and Deborah Seehorn. 2019. Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI?
[81]
David S Touretzky. 2017. Computational thinking and mental models: From Kodu to Calypso. In Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B), 2017 IEEE. IEEE, 71--78.
[82]
Philip van Allen. 2018. Prototyping Ways of Prototyping AI . Interactions 25, 6 (Oct. 2018), 46--51.
[83]
Floor van Alphen. 2014. Tango and enactivism: first steps in exploring the dynamics and experience of interaction. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 48, 3 (2014), 322--331.
[84]
Dan Ventura. 2016. Mere generation: Essential barometer or dated concept. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity. Sony CSL, Paris, 17--24.
[85]
Dan Ventura. 2017. How to build a CC system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity, Atlanta .
[86]
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
[87]
Christian Wagner. 2006. Breaking the knowledge acquisition bottleneck through conversational knowledge management. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ) 19, 1 (2006), 70--83.
[88]
Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2007. Three Play Effects--Eliza, Tale-Spin, and Sim City . Digital Humanities (2007), 1--2.
[89]
William Hollingsworth Whyte. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces.
[90]
Lauren Winston and Brian Magerko. 2017. Turn-Taking with Improvisational Co-Creative Agents. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (AIIDE '17). AAAI, Snowbird, UT.
[91]
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. ACM, 5--16.
[92]
Qian Yang. 2018. Machine Learning as a UX Design Material: How Can We Imagine Beyond Automation, Recommenders, and Reminders?. In 2018 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
[93]
Georgios N Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. In FDG .
[94]
Quan-shi Zhang and Song-Chun Zhu. 2018. Visual interpretability for deep learning: a survey. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 19, 1 (2018), 27--39.
[95]
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. ACM, 493--502.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Unpacking Approaches to Learning and Teaching Machine Learning in K-12 Education: Transparency, Ethics, and Design ActivitiesProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678117(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Fostering AI Literacy with LuminAI through Embodiment and Creativity in Informal Learning SpacesProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition10.1145/3635636.3664255(476-481)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Is It AI or Is It Me? Understanding Users’ Prompt Journey with Text-to-Image Generative AI ToolsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642861(1-13)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
C&C '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition
June 2019
745 pages
ISBN:9781450359177
DOI:10.1145/3325480
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. co-creative ai
  2. collaboration
  3. human-centered ai
  4. public displays
  5. reflection on design processes

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

C&C '19
Sponsor:
C&C '19: Creativity and Cognition
June 23 - 26, 2019
CA, San Diego, USA

Acceptance Rates

C&C '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 101 submissions, 30%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 108 of 371 submissions, 29%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)326
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Unpacking Approaches to Learning and Teaching Machine Learning in K-12 Education: Transparency, Ethics, and Design ActivitiesProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678117(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Fostering AI Literacy with LuminAI through Embodiment and Creativity in Informal Learning SpacesProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition10.1145/3635636.3664255(476-481)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Is It AI or Is It Me? Understanding Users’ Prompt Journey with Text-to-Image Generative AI ToolsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642861(1-13)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Exploring Collaborative Movement Improvisation Towards the Design of LuminAI—a Co-Creative AI Dance PartnerProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642677(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Unlock Life with a Chat(GPT): Integrating Conversational AI with Large Language Models into Everyday Lives of Autistic IndividualsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641989(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Exploring the impact of machine learning on dance performance: a systematic reviewInternational Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media10.1080/14794713.2024.233892720:1(60-109)Online publication date: 24-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Drawing with Reframer: Emergence and Control in Co-Creative AIProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3581641.3584095(264-277)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Exploring Creativity Support for Concept Art IdeationExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585684(1-7)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)From VizBlocks to the Data-Driven Actor: Reimagining an open-ended data physicalisation prototype with a creative businessExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3573847(1-7)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)“I Want to Be Unique From Other Robots”: Positioning Girls as Co-creators of Social Robots in Culturally-Responsive Computing EducationProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581272(1-14)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media