nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

18.01.2023

Exploring middle school students’ common naive conceptions of Artificial Intelligence concepts, and the evolution of these ideas

verfasst von: Keunjae Kim, Kyungbin Kwon, Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Haesol Bae, Krista Glazewski

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 8/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study aims to explore the middle schoolers' common naive conceptions of AI and the evolution of these conceptions during an AI summer camp. Data were collected from 14 middle school students (12 boys and 2 girls) from video observations and learning artifacts. The findings revealed 6 naive conceptions about AI concepts: (1) AI was the same as automation and robotics; (2) AI was a cure-all solution; (3) AI was created to be smart; (4) All data can be used by AI; and (5) AI had nothing to do with ethical considerations. The evolution of students’ conceptions of AI was captured throughout the summer camp. This study will contribute to clarifying what naive conceptions of AI were common in young students and investigating design considerations for the AI curriculum in K-12 settings to address them effectively.

Vorheriger Artikel Unpacking engineering students’ challenges and strategies in a fully online learning space: The mediating role of teachers

Nächster Artikel The effect of a technology-enhanced collaborative learning environment on secondary school students’ mathematical reasoning: A mixed method design

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ali, S., DiPaola, D., Lee, I., Sindato, V., Kim, G., Blumofe, R., & Breazeal, C. (2021). Children as creators, thinkers, and citizens in an AI-driven future. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100040CrossRef

Badham, R., Clegg, C., & Wall, T. (2000). Socio-technical theory. John Wiley.

Basili, P. A., & Sanford, J. P. (1991). Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280403CrossRef

Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300607CrossRef

Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7CrossRef

Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089CrossRef

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OACrossRef

Van Brummelen, J., Heng, T., & Tabunshchyk, V. (2021). Teaching tech to talk: K-12 conversational artificial intelligence literacy curriculum and development tools. In M. Neumann, P. Virtue & M. Guerzhoy (Eds.), Proceedings of 2021 AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AAAI. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.05653

Cave, S., & Dihal, K. (2019). Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0020-9CrossRef

Chai, C. S., Lin, P. Y., Jong, M. S. Y., Dai, Y., Chiu, T. K., & Qin, J. (2021). Perceptions of and behavioral intentions towards learning artificial intelligence in primary school students. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 89–101. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032858

Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1983). Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 173–183. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED225852

Chiodini, L., Moreno Santos, I., Gallidabino, A., Tafliovich, A., Santos, A. L., & Hauswirth, M. (2021). A curated inventory of programming language misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 380–386). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456343

Chiu, T. K., Meng, H., Chai, C. S., King, I., Wong, S., & Yam, Y. (2021). Creation and evaluation of a pretertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878CrossRef

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076CrossRef

Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007CrossRef

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W., & Gutterman, C. N. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2021). Robots are friends as well as foes: Ambivalent attitudes toward mindful and mindless AI robots in the United States and China. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106612CrossRef

Davis, B. G. (1997). Misconceptions as barriers to understanding science. In National Research Council (Eds.), Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. (pp. 27–32). National Academies Press.

Dipaola, D., Payne, B. H., & Breazeal, C. (2022). Preparing children to be conscientious consumers and designers of AI technologies. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education in K-12: Artificial intelligence literacy and physical computing (pp. 181–205). MIT Press.CrossRef

Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857CrossRef

Druga, S., Vu, S. T., Likhith, E., & Qiu, T. (2019). Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world. In P. Blikstein & N. Holbert (Eds.), Proceedings of FabLearn 2019 8th Annual Conference on Maker Education (pp. 104–111). The Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311904

Emmert-Streib, F., Yli-Harja, O., & Dehmer, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A clarification of misconceptions, myths, and desired status. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, 524339. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.524339CrossRef

Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220105MathSciNetCrossRef

Gilbert, J., Osborne, R., & Fensham, P. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66, 623–633. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ266160

Ginat, D., Menashe, E., & Taya, A. (2013). Novice difficulties with interleaved pattern composition. In I. Diethelm & R. T. Mittermeier (Eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 57–67). ISSEP. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36617-8

Glenberg, A., de Vega, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2008). Framing the debate. In M. de Vega, A. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press.

Gonzalez, M. F., Liu, W., Shirase, L., Tomczak, D. L., Lobbe, C. E., Justenhoven, R., & Martin, N. R. (2022). Allying with AI? Reactions toward human-based, AI/ML-based, and augmented hiring processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107179CrossRef

Greenwald, E., Leitner, M., & Wang, N. (2021). Learning artificial intelligence: Insights into how youth encounter and build understanding of AI concepts. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(17), 15526–15533. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i17.17828CrossRef

Greiff, S., Molnár, G., Martin, R., Zimmermann, J., & Csapó, B. (2018). Students’ exploration strategies in computer-simulated complex problem environments: A latent class approach. Computers & Education, 126, 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.013CrossRef

Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. MIT Press.CrossRef

Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369aCrossRef

Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8CrossRef

Hake, R. R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 546–552. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343637CrossRef

Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003CrossRef

Hashweh, M. (1988). Descriptive studies of students’ conceptions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250204CrossRef

Hayes, J. C., & Kraemer, D. J. M. (2017). Grounded understanding of abstract concepts: The case of STEM learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0046-zCrossRef

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Education. Center for curriculum redesign.

Huang, X. (2021). Aims for cultivating students’ key competencies based on artificial intelligence education in China. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5127–5147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10530-2CrossRef

Impey, C., Buxner, S., & Antonellis, J. (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among undergraduate students. Astronomy Education Review, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2012016CrossRef

Kaczmarczyk, L. C., Petrick, E. R., East, J. P., & Herman, G. L. (2010). Identifying student misconceptions of programming. In G. Lewandowski, S. Wolfman, T. J. Cortina, & E. L. Walker, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 107–111). Association of Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734299

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004CrossRef

Karpudewan, M., Zain, A. N. M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds.). (2017). Overcoming students’ misconceptions in science. Springer.

Kippers, W. B., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., & Visscher, A. J. (2018). Data literacy: What do educators learn and struggle with during a data use intervention? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.001CrossRef

Kong, S. C., & Abelson, H. (Eds.). (2022). Computational thinking education in K-12: Artificial intelligence literacy and physical computing. MIT Press.

Kong, S. C., Cheung, W. M. Y., & Tsang, O. (2022). Evaluating an artificial intelligence literacy programme for empowering and developing concepts, literacy and ethical awareness in senior secondary students. Education and Information Technologies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11408-7

Kreinsen, M., & Schulz, S. (2021). Students' conceptions of artificial intelligence. In Berges. M., Mühling. A, & Armoni, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 1–2). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3481312.3481328

Kwon, K. (2017). Novice programmer’s misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v1i4.19CrossRef

Kwon, K., Jeon, M., Guo, M., Yan, G., Kim, J., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Brush, T. A. (2021). Computational thinking practices: Lessons learned from a problem-based curriculum in primary education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.2014372

Lacerda Queiroz, R., Ferrentini Sampaio, F., Lima, C., & Machado Vieira Lima, P. (2021). AI from concrete to abstract. AI & SOCIETY, 36(3), 877–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01151-xCrossRef

Lai, Y. H., Chen, S. Y., Lai, C. F., Chang, Y. C., & Su, Y. S. (2021). Study on enhancing AIoT computational thinking skills by plot image-based VR. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1580750CrossRef

Lane, D. (2021). Machine learning for kids: A project-based introduction to artificial intelligence. No Starch Press.

Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in Math/Science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-zCrossRef

Lin, P., & Van Brummelen, J. (2021). Engaging teachers to co-design integrated AI curriculum for K-12 classrooms. In Y. Kitamura, A. J. Quigley, K. Isbister, T. Igarashi, P. Bjorn, & S. Drunker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445377

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage publications.CrossRef

Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In R. Bernhaupt, F. F. Muller, D. Verweij & J. Andres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

Mandinach, E. B., & Schildkamp, K. (2021). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842CrossRef

Marques, L. S., Gresse von Wangenheim, C., & Hauck, J. C. (2020). Teaching machine learning in school: A systematic mapping of the state of the art. Informatics in Education, 19(2), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.14CrossRef

Marx, E., Leonhardt, T., Baberowski, D., & Bergner, N. (2022). Using matchboxes to teach the basics of machine learning: An analysis of (possible) misconceptions. In Proceedings of the Second Teaching Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Workshop (pp. 25–29). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v170/marx22a

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.

McCauley, R., Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008). Debugging: A review of the literature from an educational perspective. Computer Science Education, 18(2), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400802114581CrossRef

McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210(4474), 1139–1141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.210.4474.113CrossRef

McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American journal of physics, 60(11), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003CrossRef

Mertala, P., Fagerlund, J., & Calderon, O. (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, 100095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100095

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons.

Nagarajan, A., Minces, V., Anu, V., Gopalasamy, V., & Bhavani, R. R. (2020). There's data all around you: Improving data literacy in high schools through STEAM-based activities. In Proceedings of Fablearn Asia 2020 (pp. 17–20). The Association for Computing Machinery. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10166600

Nathan, M. J. (2021). Foundations of embodied learning: A paradigm for education. Routledge.CrossRef

National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5287CrossRef

National Research Council. (2004). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10126CrossRef

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy an exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041CrossRef

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., Jeon, M., Jantaraweragul, K., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Scribner, A., Lee, S., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2022). Lessons Learned for AI Education with Elementary Students and Teachers. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00304-3

Pedro, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366994

Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 177–182). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445250

Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618CrossRef

Raffaghelli, J. E., & Stewart, B. (2020). Centering complexity in ‘educators’ data literacy to support future practices in faculty development: A systematic review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1696301CrossRef

Sabuncuoglu, A. (2020). Designing a one-year curriculum to teach artificial intelligence for middle school. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 96–102). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387364

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

Samsudin, A., Afif, N. F., Nugraha, M. G., Suhandi, A., Fratiwi, N. J., Aminudin, A. H., Adimayuda, R., Linuwih, S., & Costu, B. (2021). Reconstructing students’ misconceptions on work and energy through the PDEODE* E tasks with think-pair-share. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(1), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.56CrossRef

Sander, I. (2020). What is critical big data literacy and how can it be implemented? Internet Policy Review, 9(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1479CrossRef

Sanusi, I. T., Oyelere, S. S., & Omidiora, J. O. (2022). Exploring teachers’ preconceptions of teaching machine learning in high school: A preliminary insight from Africa. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100072CrossRef

Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 235–262). Psychology Press.

Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J., Tamayo, K., & Cutts, Q. (2010). Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 341–345). Association of Computing and Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734381

Smith, J. P., III., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1CrossRef

Soeharto, S., Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649CrossRef

Szczuka, J. M., Strathmann, C., Szymczyk, N., Mavrina, L., & Kramer, N. C. (2022). How do children acquire knowledge about voice assistants? A longitudinal field study on children’s knowledge about how voice assistants store and process data. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100460CrossRef

Tang, D. (2019). Empowering novices to understand and use machine learning with personalized image classification models, intuitive analysis tools, and MIT App Inventor (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Taylor, A. K., & Kowalski, P. (2014). Student misconceptions: Where do they come from and what can we do? In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying the science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 259–273). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.

Teague, D., & Lister, R. (2014). Programming: reading, writing, and reversing. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education (pp. 285–290). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591712

Tedre, M., Toivonen, T., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Valtonen, T., Jormanainen, I., & Pears, A. (2021). Teaching machine learning in K–12 classroom: Pedagogical and technological trajectories for artificial intelligence education. IEEE Access, 9, 110558–110572. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3097962CrossRef

Touretzky, D., & Gardner-McCune, C. (2022). Artificial Intelligence Thinking in K-12. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), (2022) Computational thinking education in K-12: Artificial intelligence literacy and physical computing (pp. 153–180). MIT Press.CrossRef

Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 9795–9799. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795CrossRef

Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204CrossRef

Vartiainen, H., Toivonen, T., Jormanainen, I., Kahila, J., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2021). Machine learning for middle schoolers: Learning through data-driven design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29, 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100281CrossRef

Wang, D., Zhang, L., Xu, C., Hu, H., & Qi, Y. (2016). A tangible embedded programming system to convey event-handling concept. Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Eindhoven, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839491

Williams, R., Kaputsos, S. P., & Breazeal, C. (2021). Teacher perspectives on how to train your robot: A middle school AI and ethics curriculum. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(17). 15678–15686. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/17847

Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.

Wong, G. K., Ma, X., Dillenbourg, P., & Huan, J. (2020). Broadening artificial intelligence education in K-12: Where to start? ACM Inroads, 11(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381884CrossRef

Yang, W. (2022). Artificial Intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100061MathSciNetCrossRef

Yau, K. W., Chai, C. S., Chiu, T. K., Meng, H., King, I., & Yam, Y. (2022). A phenomenographic approach on teacher conceptions of teaching Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 schools. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11161-x

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). A systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0CrossRef

Zhang, H., Lee, I., Ali, S., DiPaola, D., Cheng, Y., & Breazeal, C. (2022). Integrating ethics and career futures with technical learning to promote AI literacy for middle school students: An exploratory study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00293-3

Titel: Exploring middle school students’ common naive conceptions of Artificial Intelligence concepts, and the evolution of these ideas
verfasst von: Keunjae Kim
Kyungbin Kwon
Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich
Haesol Bae
Krista Glazewski
Publikationsdatum: 18.01.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 8/2023
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11600-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2023

Overcoming reading disabilities among teenage students with learning disabilities through collaborative storybook intervention

Exploring secondary school students’ computational thinking experiences enriched with block-based programming activities: An action research

Themes, knowledge evolution, and emerging trends in task-based teaching and learning: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace

Digital Competence of university students with disabilities and factors that determine it. A descriptive, inferential and multivariate study

Negative link prediction to reduce dropout in Massive Open Online Courses

Systematic literature review of digital resources to educate on gender equality

Premium Partner