skip to main content
10.1145/3632620.3671118acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Learning an Explanatory Model of Data-Driven Technologies can Lead to Empowered Behavior: A Mixed-Methods Study in K-12 Computing Education

Published: 12 August 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Background and Context. One goal of K-12 computing education is to teach computational concepts that support learners in responsibly and competently using and evaluating digital technologies. However, recent research indicates that students struggle to make use of such concepts in everyday life. Additionally, research shows that people develop powerlessness and resignation about data-driven technologies, leading to passive user roles. This raises the question of how to support students’ empowerment in navigating and shaping the digital world.
Objectives. This paper presents a study investigating how understanding concepts of data-driven technologies supports students’ empowerment in everyday life. It involves developing an educational approach to support students in relating learned concepts to everyday experiences, called learning explanatory models.
Method. We have developed a Rasch-scaled instrument to measure understanding of data-driven technologies and motivation, intention, and empowered behavior in engaging with them in everyday life. Using this instrument, the study evaluates the explanatory model approach, which specifically supports such relations between concepts learned in computing and students’ everyday experiences.
Findings. The results suggest that understanding of data-driven technologies according to our explanatory model leads to empowered behaviors in everyday interactions with such technologies. They also indicate improvements in students’ understanding, intentions, and empowered behaviors in everyday life, while motivation did not significantly increase. We interpret that the approach supports students to make use of the concepts in everyday life and be more empowered in a digital world.
Implications. This paper demonstrates how the relationship between learning about data-driven technologies and the development of students’ empowerment in everyday life can be examined. It shows how computing education can reduce students’ resignations and powerlessness regarding data-driven technologies and support them in adopting more informed and empowered roles in navigating the digital world.

References

[1]
Anja Achtziger and Peter M. Gollwitzer. 2018. Motivation and Volition in the Course of Action. In Motivation and Action, Jutta Heckhausen and Heinz Heckhausen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 485–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_12
[2]
Icek Ajzen, Cornelia Czasch, and Michael G. Flood. 2009. From Intentions to Behavior: Implementation Intention, Commitment, and Conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39, 6 (2009), 1356–1372.
[3]
Albert Bandura. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman, New York.
[4]
Albert Bandura. 2006. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Tim Urdan and Frank Pajares (Eds.). IAP, 307–338.
[5]
Susan B. Barnes. 2006. A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States. First Monday 11, 9 (2006). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394
[6]
Susanne Barth and Menno D.T. De Jong. 2017. The Privacy Paradox – Investigating Discrepancies between Expressed Privacy Concerns and Actual Online Behavior – A Systematic Literature Review. Telematics and Informatics 34, 7 (2017), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
[7]
Judith Bennett, Fred Lubben, and Sylvia Hogarth. 2007. Bringing Science to Life: A Synthesis of the Research Evidence on the Effects of Context-based and STS Approaches to Science Teaching. Science Education 91, 3 (2007), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20186
[8]
Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Magnus Høholt Kaspersen, Mille Skovhus Lunding, 2022. Supporting Critical Data Literacy in K-9 Education: Three Principles for Enriching Pupils’ Relationship to Data. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference(IDC ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3530783
[9]
Matthias Bode and Dorthe Brogaard Kristensen. 2016. The Digital Doppelgänger within: A Study on Self-Tracking and the Quantified Self Movement. In Assembling Consumption: Researching Actors, Networks and Markets, Robin Canniford and Domen Bajde (Eds.). Routledge, Oxon, United Kingdom, 119–135.
[10]
Leanne Bowler, Amelia Acker, Wei Jeng, and Yu Chi. 2017. “It Lives All around Us”: Aspects of Data Literacy in Teen’s Lives. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 54, 1 (2017), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401004
[11]
Robert L. Brennan and Dale J. Prediger. 1981. Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement 41, 3 (1981), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
[12]
Peter Brusilovsky and Eva Millán. 2007. User Models for Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Educational Systems. In The Adaptive Web, Peter Brusilovsky, Alfred Kobsa, and Wolfgang Nejdl (Eds.). Vol. 4321. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_1
[13]
Taina Bucher. 2017. The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20, 1 (2017), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
[14]
Jenna Burrell. 2016. How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society 3, 1 (2016), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
[15]
Lorena Casal-Otero, Alejandro Catala, Carmen Fernández-Morante, Maria Taboada, Beatriz Cebreiro, and Senén Barro. 2023. AI Literacy in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of STEM Education 10, 1 (2023), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7
[16]
Michael E. Caspersen, Ira Diethelm, Judith Gal-Ezer, Andrew McGettrick, Enrico Nardelli, Don Passey, Branislav Rovan, and Mary Webb. 2022. Informatics Reference Framework for School. NSF. https://doi.org/10.1145/3592625
[17]
Center For Self-Determination Theory. [n. d.]. Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ accessed: 2022-09-01.
[18]
Hichang Cho. 2022. Privacy Helplessness on Social Media: Its Constituents, Antecedents and Consequences. Internet Research 32, 1 (2022), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-05-2020-0269
[19]
Hanbyul Choi, Jonghwa Park, and Yoonhyuk Jung. 2018. The Role of Privacy Fatigue in Online Privacy Behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001
[20]
Jacob Cohen. 1992. A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 1 (1992), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
[21]
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Michael E. Caspersen, and Rachel Charlotte Smith. 2022. Computational Empowerment. In Computational Thinking Education in K–12, Siu-Cheung Kong and Harold Abelson (Eds.). The MIT Press, 121–140.
[22]
Daniella DiPaola, Blakeley H. Payne, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2022. Preparing Children to Be Conscientious Consumers and Designers of AI Technologies. In Computational Thinking Education in K–12, Siu-Cheung Kong and Harold Abelson (Eds.). The MIT Press, 181–206. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0014
[23]
Liz Dowthwaite, Helen Creswick, Virginia Portillo, 2020. "It’s Your Private Information. It’s Your Life.": Young People’s Views of Personal Data Use by Online Technologies. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference. ACM, London United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394410
[24]
Nora A Draper and Joseph Turow. 2019. The Corporate Cultivation of Digital Resignation. New Media & Society 21, 8 (2019), 1824–1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819833331
[25]
Stefania Druga and Amy J Ko. 2021. How Do Children’s Perceptions of Machine Intelligence Change When Training and Coding Smart Programs?. In Interaction Design and Children. ACM, Athens Greece, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460712
[26]
Reinders Duit, Harald Gropengießer, Ulrich Kattmann, Michael Komorek, and Ilka Parchmann. 2012. The Model of Educational Reconstruction – a Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science1. In Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrosspective and Prospecctive, Doris Jorde and Justin Dillon (Eds.). SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_2
[27]
Sally Fincher, Johan Jeuring, Craig S. Miller, Peter Donaldson, Benedict Du Boulay, Matthias Hauswirth, Arto Hellas, Felienne Hermans, Colleen Lewis, Andreas Mühling, Janice L. Pearce, and Andrew Petersen. 2020. Notional Machines in Computing Education: The Education of Attention. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, Trondheim Norway, 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3437800.3439202
[28]
Gerhard Fischer and Elisa Giaccardi. 2006. Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development. In End User Development, Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, and Volker Wulf (Eds.). Vol. 9. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_19
[29]
Jessica Fishman, Viktor Lushin, and David S. Mandell. 2020. Predicting Implementation: Comparing Validated Measures of Intention and Assessing the Role of Motivation When Designing Behavioral Interventions. Implementation Science Communications 1, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00050-4
[30]
Jessica Flake, Kenneth Barron, Chris Hulleman, D. Betsy Mccoach, and Megan Welsh. 2015. Measuring Cost: The Forgotten Component of Expectancy-Value Theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology 41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002
[31]
Paulo Freire. 2012. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (repr ed.). Bloomsbury, New York.
[32]
Kamel Gana and Guillaume Broc. 2019. Structural Equation Modeling with Lavaan. ISTE, London.
[33]
Engida H. Gebre. 2018. Young Adults’ Understanding and Use of Data: Insights for Fostering Secondary School Students’ Data Literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 18, 4 (2018), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0034-z
[34]
John K. Gilbert. 2006. On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education. International Journal of Science Education 28, 9 (2006), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
[35]
Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran. 2006. Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
[36]
Cami Goray and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2022. Youths’ Perceptions of Data Collection in Online Advertising and Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555576
[37]
Gregor Große-Bölting and Andreas Mühling. 2020. Students Perception of the Inner Workings of Learning Machines. In 2020 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE), Vol. 5. IEEE Computer Society, Ho Chi Minh City.
[38]
Shuchi Grover. 2024. Teaching AI to K-12 Learners: Lessons, Issues, and Guidance. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. ACM, Portland OR USA, 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630937
[39]
Mark Guzdial. 2010. Does Contextualized Computing Education Help?ACM Inroads 1, 4 (2010), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1869746.1869747
[40]
Eszter Hargittai and Alice Marwick. 2016. “What Can I Really Do?” Explaining the Privacy Paradox with Online Apathy. Int. Journal of Communication 10 (2016), 3737–3757.
[41]
Jutta Heckhausen. 2007. The Motivation-Volition Divide and Its Resolution in Action-Phase Models of Developmental Regulation. Research in Human Development 4, 3-4 (2007), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600701662983
[42]
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, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300645
[43]
Christian Pieter Hoffmann, Christoph Lutz, and Giulia Ranzini. 2016. Privacy Cynicism: A New Approach to the Privacy Paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 10, 4 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-7
[44]
Christian Pieter Hoffmann, Christoph Lutz, and Giulia Ranzini. 2024. Inequalities in Privacy Cynicism: An Intersectional Analysis of Agency Constraints. Big Data & Society 11, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241232629
[45]
Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte. 2024. The Data Awareness Framework as Part of Data Literacies in K-12 Education. Information and Learning Sciences 125, 7/8 (2024), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0075
[46]
Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte. 2024. Empowering Students for the Data-Driven World: A Qualitative Study of the Relevance of Learning about Data-Driven Technologies. Informatics in Education (2024). https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2024.19
[47]
Li-tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1 (1999), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
[48]
Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2018. From Computational Thinking to Computational Empowerment: A 21st Century PD Agenda. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1. ACM, Hasselt and Genk Belgium, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592
[49]
K–12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. 2016. K-12 Computer Science Framework. http://www.k12cs.org
[50]
Caroline Keen. 2020. Apathy, Convenience or Irrelevance? Identifying Conceptual Barriers to Safeguarding Children’s Data Privacy. New Media & Society 24, 1 (2020), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820960068
[51]
Rob Kitchin. 2014. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, California.
[52]
A. D. I. Kramer, J. E. Guillory, and J. T. Hancock. 2014. Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 24 (2014), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412583111
[53]
Udo Kuckartz. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. SAGE, Los Angeles.
[54]
J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159–174. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310
[55]
Irene Lee, Safinah Ali, Helen Zhang, Daniella DiPaola, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Developing Middle School Students’ AI Literacy. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432513
[56]
Sonia Livingstone, Mariya Stoilova, and Rishita Nandagiri. 2019. Children’s Data and Privacy Online: Growing up in a Digital Age. An Evidence Review.
[57]
Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What Is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
[58]
Steven F. Maier and Martin E. Seligman. 1976. Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 105, 1 (1976), 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3
[59]
David Markland and Lew Hardy. 1997. On the Factorial and Construct Validity of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: Conceptual and Operational Concerns. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68, 1 (1997), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10608863
[60]
Karl Maton. 2013. Making Semantic Waves: A Key to Cumulative Knowledge-Building. Linguistics and Education 24, 1 (2013), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
[61]
Edward McAuley, Terry Duncan, and Vance V. Tammen. 1989. Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 60, 1 (1989), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
[62]
Pekka Mertala and Janne Fagerlund. 2024. Finnish 5th and 6th Graders’ Misconceptions about Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 39 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100630
[63]
Pekka Mertala, Janne Fagerlund, and Oscar Calderon. 2022. Finnish 5th and 6th Grade Students’ Pre-Instructional Conceptions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Their Implications for AI Literacy Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100095
[64]
Joseph E Michaelis and David Weintrop. 2022. Interest Development Theory in Computing Education: A Framework and Toolkit for Researchers and Designers. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 22, 4 (2022), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487054
[65]
Luis Morales-Navarro and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2023. Conceptualizing Approaches to Critical Computing Education: Inquiry, Design, and Reimagination. In Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research, Mikko Apiola, Sonsoles López-Pernas, and Mohammed Saqr (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_21
[66]
Rainer Mühlhoff. 2021. Predictive Privacy: Towards an Applied Ethics of Data Analytics. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 4 (2021), 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09606-x
[67]
Andreas Mühling and Gregor Große-Bölting. 2023. Novices’ Conceptions of Machine Learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100142
[68]
Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Maggie Shen Qiao. 2021. Conceptualizing AI Literacy: An Exploratory Review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
[69]
Jacqueline Nijenhuis-Voogt, Durdane Bayram-Jacobs, Paulien C. Meijer, and Erik Barendsen. 2021. Omnipresent yet Elusive: Teachers’ Views on Contexts for Teaching Algorithms in Secondary Education. Computer Science Education 31, 1 (2021), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1783149
[70]
OECD. 2014. Summary of the OECD Privacy Expert Roundtable: Protecting Privacy in a Data-driven Economy: Taking Stock of Current Thinking. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196391-en
[71]
Luci Pangrazio and Neil Selwyn. 2019. ‘Personal Data Literacies’: A Critical Literacies Approach to Enhancing Understandings of Personal Digital Data. New Media & Society 21, 2 (2019), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799523
[72]
Luci Pangrazio and Neil Selwyn. 2020. Towards a School-Based ‘Critical Data Education’. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 29, 3 (2020), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1747527
[73]
Yim Register and Amy J. Ko. 2020. Learning Machine Learning with Personal Data Helps Stakeholders Ground Advocacy Arguments in Model Mechanics. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, Virtual Event New Zealand, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406252
[74]
Mitchel Resnick and Brian Silverman. 2005. Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, Boulder Colorado, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1109540.1109556
[75]
Saman Rizvi, Jane Waite, and Sue Sentence. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Teaching and Learning in K-12 from 2019 to 2022: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100145
[76]
Michael T. Rücker, Wouter R. Van Joolingen, and Niels Pinkwart. 2020. Small but Powerful: A Learning Study to Address Secondary Students’ Conceptions of Everyday Computing Technology. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 20, 2 (2020), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377880
[77]
Douglas Rushkoff. 2010. Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. OR Books, New York.
[78]
Ina Sander. 2020. What Is Critical Big Data Literacy and How Can It Be Implemented?Internet Policy Review 9, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1479
[79]
Carsten Schulte and Lea Budde. 2018. A Framework for Computing Education: Hybrid Interaction System: The Need for a Bigger Picture in Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, Koli Finland, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279733
[80]
Carsten Schulte and Maria Knobelsdorf. 2007. Attitudes towards Computer Science-Computing Experiences as a Starting Point and Barrier to Computer Science. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research - ICER ’07. ACM Press, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288585
[81]
Dale H. Schunk, Maria K. DiBenedetoo, Kathryn R. Wentzel, and David B. Miele. 2016. Self-Efficacy Theory in Education. In Handbook of Motivation at School (2 ed.). Routledge, New York, 34–54.
[82]
D Sculley, Gary Holt, Daniel Golovin, Eugene Davydov, Todd Phillips, Dietmar Ebner, Vinay Chaudhary, Michael Young, Jean-François Crespo, and Dan Dennison. 2015. Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems. In NIPS’15: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 2. 2503–2511.
[83]
Daniel Susser, Beate Roessler, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2019. Technology, Autonomy, and Manipulation. Internet Policy Review 8, 2 (2019), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410
[84]
Matti Tedre, Henriikka Vartiainen, Juho Kahila, Tapani Toivonen, Ilkka Jormanainen, and Teemu Valtonen. 2020. Machine Learning Introduces New Perspectives to Data Agency in K—12 Computing Education. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, Uppsala, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274138
[85]
David Touretzky, Christina Gardner-McCune, Fred Martin, and Deborah Seehorn. 2019. Envisioning AI for K-12: What Should Every Child Know about AI?Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33 (2019), 9795–9799. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795
[86]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2014. Engineering the Public: Big Data, Surveillance and Computational Politics. First Monday 19, 7 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901
[87]
Maarten Van Mechelen, Line Have Musaeus, Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Arthur Hjorth. 2021. A Systematic Review of Empowerment in Child-Computer Interaction Research. In Interaction Design and Children. ACM, Athens Greece, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460701
[88]
Henriikka Vartiainen, Tapani Toivonen, Ilkka Jormanainen, Juho Kahila, Matti Tedre, and Teemu Valtonen. 2021. Machine Learning for Middle Schoolers: Learning through Data-Driven Design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 29 (2021), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100281
[89]
Jane Waite, Karl Maton, Paul Curzon, and Lucinda Tuttiett. 2019. Unplugged Computing and Semantic Waves: Analysing Crazy Characters. In Proceedings of the 1st UK & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference on - UKICER. ACM Press, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351287.3351291
[90]
Thomas L. Webb and Paschal Sheeran. 2006. Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin 132, 2 (2006), 249–268.
[91]
Allan Wigfield and Jenna Cambria. 2010. Students’ Achievement Values, Goal Orientations, and Interest: Definitions, Development, and Relations to Achievement Outcomes. Developmental Review 30, 1 (2010), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
[92]
Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2000. Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 1 (2000), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
[93]
Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2023. The Relevance of Situated Expectancy-Value Theory to Understanding Motivation and Emotion in Different Contexts (1 ed.). Routledge, London, 3–18.
[94]
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. ACM, Boise ID USA, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323139
[95]
Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (first edition ed.). PublicAffairs, New York.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)New Perspectives on the Future of Computing Education: Teaching and Learning Explanatory ModelsProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699558(1-8)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Enhancing Understanding of Data Traces and Profiling Among K--9 Students Through an Interactive Classroom GameProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3677635(1-9)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024

Index Terms

  1. Learning an Explanatory Model of Data-Driven Technologies can Lead to Empowered Behavior: A Mixed-Methods Study in K-12 Computing Education

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICER '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
      August 2024
      539 pages
      ISBN:9798400704758
      DOI:10.1145/3632620
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 12 August 2024

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. K-12
      2. data awareness
      3. data-driven technologies
      4. empowerment
      5. explanatory models
      6. machine learning

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Funding Sources

      • Deutsche Telekom Stiftung

      Conference

      ICER 2024
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

      Upcoming Conference

      ICER 2025
      ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
      August 3 - 6, 2025
      Charlottesville , VA , USA

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)244
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)58
      Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)New Perspectives on the Future of Computing Education: Teaching and Learning Explanatory ModelsProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699558(1-8)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
      • (2024)Enhancing Understanding of Data Traces and Profiling Among K--9 Students Through an Interactive Classroom GameProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3677635(1-9)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Login options

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media