skip to main content
10.1145/3488042.3490514acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Intercontinental evidence on learners’ differentials in sense-making of machine learning in schools

Published:18 November 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Given the importance of machine learning for K-12 levels, finding out ways to communicate the concept to students such that it will be less intimidating is necessary. This will help to demystify machine learning for students. Drawing on qualitative methodology approach, this study aims to explore how to teach machine learning in K-12 context using middle school students’ samples in Nigeria, Finland, and United States. Considering the cross-contextual approach and the study aim, this research will be a valuable addition to the limited evidence that support differentials in students learning of machine learning technology across culture and background. The study outcome will be an indispensable resource for addressing how the uniqueness of each contexts can be leveraged on to best introduce machine learning to schools.

References

  1. Gerlese S Åkerlind. 2005. Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher education research & development 24, 4 (2005), 321–334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thomas K. F. Chiu, Helen Meng, Ching-Sing Chai, Irwin King, Savio Wong, and Yeung Yam. 2021. Creation and Evaluation of a Pretertiary Artificial Intelligence (AI) Curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education(2021), 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Tom Hitron, Yoav Orlev, Iddo Wald, Ariel Shamir, Hadas Erel, and Oren Zuckerman. 2019. Can children understand machine learning concepts? The effect of uncovering black boxes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 11 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Xiaodong Huang. 2021. Aims for cultivating students’ key competencies based on artificial intelligence education in China. Education and Information Technologies 26 (2021), 5127–5147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2012. Phenomenography and grounded theory as research methods in computing education research field. Computer Science Education 22, 2 (2012), 199–218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ference Marton and Shirley Booth. 2013. Learning and awareness. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Koby Mike and Rinat B Rosenberg-Kima. 2021. Teaching Machine Learning to Computer Science Preservice Teachers: Human vs. Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 1368–1368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ismaila Temitayo Sanusi and Solomon Sunday Oyelere. 2020. Pedagogies of Machine Learning in K-12 Context. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 8 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ismaila Temitayo Sanusi, Solomon Sunday Oyelere, Friday Joseph Agbo, and Jarkko Suhonen. 2021. Survey of resources for introducing machine learning in K-12 context. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Danny Tang. 2019. Empowering novices to understand and use machine learning with personalized image classification models, intuitive analysis tools, and MIT App Inventor. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ismaila Temitayo Sanusi. 2021. Teaching Machine Learning in K-12 Education. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 395–397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 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 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 9795–9799. Issue 01.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Henriikka Vartiainen, Matti Tedre, and Teemu Valtonen. 2020. Learning machine learning with very young children: Who is teaching whom?International journal of child-computer interaction 25 (2020), 100182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Anu Vazhayil, Radhika Shetty, Rao R Bhavani, and Nagarajan Akshay. 2019. Focusing on teacher education to introduce AI in schools: Perspectives and illustrative findings. In 2019 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E). IEEE, 71–77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Robert K Yin. 2011. Applications of case study research. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gustavo Zurita and Miguel Nussbaum. 2007. A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology 38, 2 (2007), 211–235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    Koli Calling '21: Proceedings of the 21st Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
    November 2021
    287 pages
    ISBN:9781450384889
    DOI:10.1145/3488042

    Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 18 November 2021

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate80of182submissions,44%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format