Search for: All records

Youth regularly use technology driven by artificial intelligence (AI). However, it is increasingly well-known that AI can cause harm on small and large scales, especially for those underrepresented in tech fields. Recently, users have played active roles in surfacing and mitigating harm from algorithmic bias. Despite being frequent users of AI, youth have been under-explored as potential contributors and stakeholders to the future of AI. We consider three notions that may be at the root of youth facing barriers to playing an active role in responsible AI, which are youth (1) cannot understand the technical aspects of AI, (2) cannot understand the ethical issues around AI, and (3) need protection from serious topics related to bias and injustice. In this study, we worked with youth (N = 30) in first through twelfth grade and parents (N = 6) to explore how youth can be part of identifying algorithmic bias and designing future systems to address problematic technology behavior. We found that youth are capable of identifying and articulating algorithmic bias, often in great detail. Participants suggested different ways users could give feedback for AI that reflects their values of diversity and inclusion. Youth who may have less experience with computing or exposure to societal structures can be supported by peers or adults with more of this knowledge, leading to critical conversations about fairer AI. This work illustrates youths' insights, suggesting that they should be integrated in building a future of responsible AI.

 

Community-based afterschool programs are valuable spaces for researchers to codesign technologies with direct relevance to local communities. However, afterschool programs differ in resources available, culture, and student demographics in ways that may impact the efficacy of the codesign process and outcome. We ran a series of multi-week educational game codesign workshops across five programs over twenty weeks and found notable differences, despite deploying the same protocol. Our findings characterize three types of programs: Safe Havens, Recreation Centers, and Homework Helpers. We note major differences in students' patterns of participation directly influenced by each program's culture and expectations for equitable partnerships and introduce Comparative Design-Based Research (cDBR) as a beneficial lens for codesign. 

The importance of considering local context and partnering with target users is well established in co-design. Less common is an examination of the adaptations needed when deploying the same co-design program across heterogenous settings to maximize program efficacy and equity. We report on our experience co-designing educational games with six culturally and socioeconomically diverse afterschool sites over two years, and insights from interviewing ten program administrators across all sites. We found that even within the same afterschool program network, site differences in organizational culture and resources impacted the effectiveness of co-design programs, the co-design output, and expectations for student engagement. We characterize our afterschool partners into different archetypes – Safe Havens, Recreation Centers, Homework Helpers, and STEM Enrichment Centers. We provide recommendations for conducting co-design at each archetype and reflect on strategies for increasing equitable partnerships between researchers and afterschool centers. 

Robot technologies have been introduced to computing education to engage learners. This study introduces the concept of co-creation with a robot agent into culturally-responsive computing (CRC). Co- creation with computer agents has previously focused on creating external artifacts. Our work differs by making the robot agent itself the co-created product. Through participatory design activities, we positioned adolescent girls and an agentic social robot as co- creators of the robot’s identity. Taking a thematic analysis approach, we examined how girls embody the role of creator and co-creator in this space. We identified themes surrounding who has the power to make decisions, what decisions are made, and how to maintain social relationship. Our findings suggest that co-creation with robot technology is a promising implementation vehicle for realizing CRC. 

Culturally responsive STEM and computing initiatives aim to engage and embolden a diverse range of learners, center their identity and experiences in curriculum, and connect learners to each other and their communities. With an abrupt pivot to online learning at the beginning of 2020, more educational experiences have taken place virtually. We ran a virtual synchronous culturally responsive computing camp and saw that establishing the right environment online to support a good sense of connectedness was challenging. To investigate this further, we interviewed eight K-12 instructors of culturally responsive STEM and computing programs. Three themes emerged on defining and cultivating connectedness in learning experiences, the role of equity in supporting community online, and affordances of being online specific to culturally responsive perspectives. We support our thematic findings with vignettes from the camp data. In this study, we address K-12 culturally responsive STEM and computing instructors' beliefs, experiences, and approaches regarding cultivating connectedness online. This work fills a gap in understanding instructor perspectives on building in-program and broader community connections online from a culturally responsive STEM and computing lens.

 

Computing education is important for K-12 learners, but not all learners resonate with common educational practices. Culturally responsive computing initiatives center and empower learners from diverse and historically excluded backgrounds. Recently, a number of educational programs have been developed and curated for an online experience. In this paper, we describe an online synchronous culturally responsive computing (CRC) camp for middle school girls (ages 11-14 years old) and report on challenges and successes from running the camp curriculum four times over the course of a year. We also describe core iterative changes we made between our runs. We then discuss lessons learned related to building rapport and connection among learners, centering learners of different backgrounds in an online synchronous environment, and facilitating reflection on power and identity aimed at positioning learners as techno-social change agents. Lastly, we offer recommendations for running online CRC experiences.