Finnish 5th and 6th grade students' pre-instructional conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) and their implications for AI literacy education

被引：0
作者：
Mertala P. [1 ]
Fagerlund J. [2 ]
Calderon O. [2 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Alvar Aallon katu 9, Jyväskylä
[2] Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Alvar Aallon katu 9, Jyväskylä
来源：
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence | 2022年 / 3卷
关键词：
AI literacy; Artificial intelligence; Conceptions; Primary education; Students;
D O I：
10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100095
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
In the present paper, we report the findings of a qualitative survey study of 195 Finnish 5th and 6th grade students' pre-instructional conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI). An exploration of these initial conceptions provides insight into students' preliminary understanding of the topic and informs curriculum designers and teachers about misconceptions that might jeopardize student learning. The findings suggest that students' initial conceptions of AI are varied and often uninformed. For instance, references to the role of data in training AI applications were practically nonexistent. Instead, AI was often described as an anthropomorphic technology that possesses cognitive qualities equivalent to those of humans––a conception that notably resembles how AI is portrayed in the media. As a pedagogical implication, our findings suggest that it would be valuable to “demystify” AI by exploring its technical principles (i.e., the role of data) of the “human-like” AI solutions students encounter in their everyday lives. © 2022 The Authors
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 102 条
  • [1] Airenti G., The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: From relatedness to empathy, International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 1, pp. 117-127, (2015)
  • [2] Andrejevic M., Selwyn N., Facial recognition technology in schools: Critical questions and concerns, Learning, Media and Technology, 45, 2, pp. 115-128, (2020)
  • [3] Bao L., Krause N.M., Calice M.N., Scheufele D.A., Wirz C.D., Brossard D., Xenos M.A., Whose AI? How different publics think about AI and its social impacts, Computers in Human Behavior, 130, (2022)
  • [4] Barassi V., Child data citizen: How tech companies are profiling us from before birth, (2020)
  • [5] Biber C., Tuna A., Korkmaz S., The mistakes and the misconceptions of the eighth grade students on the subject of angles, European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 2, pp. 50-59, (2013)
  • [6] Biesta G., Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research, Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, pp. 95-118, (2010)
  • [7] Boeije H., A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews, Quality and Quantity, 36, 4, pp. 391-409, (2002)
  • [8] Brokensha S., Friend or foe? How online news outlets in South Africa frame artificial intelligence, Ensovoort: Journal of Cultural Studies, 41, 7, (2020)
  • [9] Carter N., Bryant-Lukosius D., Alba DiCenso R.N., Blythe J., Neville A., The use of triangulation in qualitative research, Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 5, pp. 545-547, (2014)
  • [10] Carvalho L., Martinez-Maldonado R., Tsai Y.S., Markauskaite L., De Laat M., How can we design for learning in an AI world?, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, (2022)
12345678910