skip to main content
10.1145/3202185.3210776acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Introducing children to machine learning concepts through hands-on experience

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Machine Learning (ML) processes are integrated into devices and services that affect many aspects of daily life. As a result, basic understanding of ML concepts becomes essential for people of all ages, including children. We studied if 10--12 years old children can understand basic ML concepts through direct experience with a digital stick-like device, in a WoZ-based experiment. To assess children's understanding we applied an experimental design including a pretest, a gesture recognition training activity, and a posttest. The tests included validating children's understanding of the gesture training activity, other gesture detection processes, and application to ML processes in daily scenarios. Our findings suggest that children are able to understand basic ML concepts, and can even apply them to a new context. We conclude that ML learning activities should allow children to sample their own examples and evaluate them in an iterative way, and proper feedback should be designed to gradually scaffold understanding.

References

  1. Dong Chen, Rachel KE Bellamy, Peter K Malkin, and Thomas Erickson. 2016. Diagnostic visualization for non-expert machine learning practitioners: A design study. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2016 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 87--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies-why and how. Knowledge-based systems 6, 4 (1993), 258--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sayamindu Dasgupta and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2017. Scratch community blocks: Supporting children as data scientists. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3620--3631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. OL Davis Jr. 1959. Children Can Learn Complex Concepts. Educational Leadership 17, 3 (1959), 170--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tom Hitron, Idan David, Netta Ofer, Andrey Grishko, Iddo Wald, Hadas Erel, and Oren Zuckerman. 2018. Digital Outdoor Play: Benefits and Risks from an Interaction Design Perspective. In CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fei Hu and Qi Hao. 2012. Intelligent sensor networks: the integration of sensor networks, signal processing and machine learning. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David H Jonassen and Philip Henning. 1996. Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. In Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 433--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kayur Dushyant Patel. 2012. Lowering the barrier to applying machine learning. University of Washington.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mitchel Resnick, Robbie Berg, and Michael Eisenberg. 2000. Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9, 1 (2000), 7--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Mitchel Resnick, Fred Martin, Robert Berg, Rick Borovoy, Vanessa Colella, Kwin Kramer, and Brian Silverman. 1998. Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 281--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Royal Society. 2017. Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Yunjia Sun. 2016. Novice-Centric Visualizations for Machine Learning. Master's thesis. University of Waterloo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Oren Zuckerman. 2009. Designing digital objects for learning: lessons from Froebel and Montessori. International Journal of Arts and Technology 3, 1 (2009), 124--135.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 Conferences
    IDC '18: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children
    June 2018
    789 pages
    ISBN:9781450351522
    DOI:10.1145/3202185

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 19 June 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    IDC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate28of96submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate172of578submissions,30%

    Upcoming Conference

    IDC '24
    Interaction Design and Children
    June 17 - 20, 2024
    Delft , Netherlands

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader