All posts by Veronica Cucuiat

How we’re learning to explain AI terms for young people and educators

Post Syndicated from Veronica Cucuiat original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/explaining-ai-terms-young-people-educators/

What do we talk about when we talk about artificial intelligence (AI)? It’s becoming a cliche to point out that, because the term “AI” is used to describe so many different things nowadays, it’s difficult to know straight away what anyone means when they say “AI”. However, it’s true that without a shared understanding of what AI and related terms mean, we can’t talk about them, or educate young people about the field.

A group of young people demonstrate a project at Coolest Projects.

So when we started designing materials for the Experience AI learning programme in partnership with leading AI unit Google DeepMind, we decided to create short explanations of key AI and machine learning (ML) terms. The explanations are doubly useful:

  1. They ensure that we give learners and teachers a consistent and clear understanding of the key terms across all our Experience AI resources. Within the Experience AI Lessons for Key Stage 3 (age 11–14), these key terms are also correlated to the target concepts and learning objectives presented in the learning graph. 
  2. They help us talk about AI and AI education in our team. Thanks to sharing an understanding of what terms such as “AI”, “ML”, “model”, or “training” actually mean and how to best talk about AI, our conversations are much more productive.

As an example, here is our explanation of the term “artificial intelligence” for learners aged 11–14:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the design and study of systems that appear to mimic intelligent behaviour. Some AI applications are based on rules. More often now, AI applications are built using machine learning that is said to ‘learn’ from examples in the form of data. For example, some AI applications are built to answer questions or help diagnose illnesses. Other AI applications could be built for harmful purposes, such as spreading fake news. AI applications do not think. AI applications are built to carry out tasks in a way that appears to be intelligent.

You can find 32 explanations in the glossary that is part of the Experience AI Lessons. Here’s an insight into how we arrived at the explanations.

Reliable sources

In order to ensure the explanations are as precise as possible, we first identified reliable sources. These included among many others:

Explaining AI terms to Key Stage 3 learners: Some principles

Vocabulary is an important part of teaching and learning. When we use vocabulary correctly, we can support learners to develop their understanding. If we use it inconsistently, this can lead to alternate conceptions (misconceptions) that can interfere with learners’ understanding. You can read more about this in our Pedagogy Quick Read on alternate conceptions.

Some of our principles for writing explanations of AI terms were that the explanations need to: 

  • Be accurate
  • Be grounded in education research best practice
  • Be suitable for our target audience (Key Stage 3 learners, i.e. 11- to 14-year-olds)
  • Be free of terms that have alternative meanings in computer science, such as “algorithm”

We engaged in an iterative process of writing explanations, gathering feedback from our team and our Experience AI project partners at Google DeepMind, and adapting the explanations. Then we went through the feedback and adaptation cycle until we all agreed that the explanations met our principles.

A real banana and an image of a banana shown on the screen of a laptop are both labelled "Banana".
Image: Max Gruber / Better Images of AI / Ceci n’est pas une banane / CC-BY 4.0

An important part of what emerged as a result, aside from the explanations of AI terms themselves, was a blueprint for how not to talk about AI. One aspect of this is avoiding anthropomorphism, detailed by Ben Garside from our team here.

As part of designing the the Experience AI Lessons, creating the explanations helped us to:

  • Decide which technical details we needed to include when introducing AI concepts in the lessons
  • Figure out how to best present these technical details
  • Settle debates about where it would be appropriate, given our understanding and our learners’ age group, to abstract or leave out details

Using education research to explain AI terms

One of the ways education research informed the explanations was that we used semantic waves to structure each term’s explanation in three parts: 

  1. Top of the wave: The first one or two sentences are a high-level abstract explanation of the term, kept as short as possible, while introducing key words and concepts.
  2. Bottom of the wave: The middle part of the explanation unpacks the meaning of the term using a common example, in a context that’s familiar to a young audience. 
  3. Top of the wave: The final one or two sentences repack what was explained in the example in a more abstract way again to reconnect with the term. The end part should be a repeat of the top of the wave at the beginning of the explanation. It should also add further information to lead to another concept. 

Most explanations also contain ‘middle of the wave’ sentences, which add additional abstract content, bridging the ‘bottom of the wave’ concrete example to the ‘top of the wave’ abstract content.

Here’s the “artificial intelligence” explanation broken up into the parts of the semantic wave:

  • Artificial intelligence (AI) is the design and study of systems that appear to mimic intelligent behaviour. (top of the wave)
  • Some AI applications are based on rules. More often now, AI applications are built using machine learning that is said to ‘learn’ from examples in the form of data. (middle of the wave)
  • For example, some AI applications are built to answer questions or help diagnose illnesses. Other AI applications could be built for harmful purposes, such as spreading fake news (bottom of the wave)
  • AI applications do not think. (middle of the wave)
  • AI applications are built to carry out tasks in a way that appears to be intelligent. (top of the wave)
Our "artificial intelligence" explanation broken up into the parts of the semantic wave.
Our “artificial intelligence” explanation broken up into the parts of the semantic wave. Red = top of the wave; yellow = middle of the wave; green = bottom of the wave

Was it worth our time?

Some of the explanations went through 10 or more iterations before we agreed they were suitable for publication. After months of thinking about, writing, correcting, discussing, and justifying the explanations, it’s tempting to wonder whether I should have just prompted an AI chatbot to generate the explanations for me.

A window of three images. On the right is a photo of a big tree in a green field in a field of grass and a bright blue sky. The two on the left are simplifications created based on a decision tree algorithm. The work illustrates a popular type of machine learning model: the decision tree. Decision trees work by splitting the population into ever smaller segments. I try to give people an intuitive understanding of the algorithm. I also want to show that models are simplifications of reality, but can still be useful, or in this case visually pleasing. To create this I trained a model to predict pixel colour values, based on an original photograph of a tree.
Rens Dimmendaal & Johann Siemens / Better Images of AI / Decision Tree reversed / CC-BY 4.0

I tested this idea by getting a chatbot to generate an explanation of “artificial intelligence” using the prompt “Explain what artificial intelligence is, using vocabulary suitable for KS3 students, avoiding anthropomorphism”. The result included quite a few inconsistencies with our principles, as well as a couple of technical inaccuracies. Perhaps I could have tweaked the prompt for the chatbot in order to get a better result. However, relying on a chatbot’s output would mean missing out on some of the value of doing the work of writing the explanations in collaboration with my team and our partners.

The visible result of that work is the explanations themselves. The invisible result is the knowledge we all gained, and the coherence we reached as a team, both of which enabled us to create high-quality resources for Experience AI. We wouldn’t have gotten to know what resources we wanted to write without writing the explanations ourselves and improving them over and over. So yes, it was worth our time.

What do you think about the explanations?

The process of creating and iterating the AI explanations highlights how opaque the field of AI still is, and how little we yet know about how best to teach and learn about it. At the Raspberry Pi Foundation, we now know just a bit more about that and are excited to share the results with teachers and young people.

You can access the Experience AI Lessons and the glossary with all our explanations at experience-ai.org. The glossary of AI explanations is just in its first published version: we will continue to improve it as we find out more about how to best support young people to learn about this field.

Let us know what you think about the explanations and whether they’re useful in your teaching. Onwards with the exciting work of establishing how to successfully engage young people in learning about and creating with AI technologies.

The post How we’re learning to explain AI terms for young people and educators appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

Integrating primary computing and literacy through multimodal storytelling

Post Syndicated from Veronica Cucuiat original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/primary-computing-programming-literacy-storytelling/

Broadening participation and finding new entry points for young people to engage with computing is part of how we pursue our mission here at the Raspberry Pi Foundation. It was also the focus of our March online seminar, led by our own Dr Bobby Whyte. In this third seminar of our series on computing education for primary-aged children, Bobby presented his work on ‘designing multimodal composition activities for integrated K-5 programming and storytelling’. In this research he explored the integration of computing and literacy education, and the implications and limitations for classroom practice.

Young learners at computers in a classroom.

Motivated by challenges Bobby experienced first-hand as a primary school teacher, his two studies on the topic contribute to the body of research aiming to make computing less narrow and difficult. In this work, Bobby integrated programming and storytelling as a way of making the computing curriculum more applicable, relevant, and contextualised.

Critically for computing educators and researchers in the area, Bobby explored how theories related to ‘programming as writing’ translate into practice, and what the implications of designing and delivering integrated lessons in classrooms are. While the two studies described here took place in the context of UK schooling, we can learn universal lessons from this work.

What is multimodal composition?

In the seminar Bobby made a distinction between applying computing to literacy (or vice versa) and true integration of programming and storytelling. To achieve true integration in the two studies he conducted, Bobby used the idea of ‘multimodal composition’ (MMC). A multimodal composition is defined as “a composition that employs a variety of modes, including sound, writing, image, and gesture/movement [… with] a communicative function”.

Storytelling comes together with programming in a multimodal composition as learners create a program to tell a story where they:

  • Decide on content and representation (the characters, the setting, the backdrop)
  • Structure text they’ve written
  • Use technical aspects (i.e. motion blocks, tension) to achieve effects for narrative purposes
A screenshot showing a Scratch project.
Defining multimodal composition (MMC) for a visual programming context

Multimodality for programming and storytelling in the classroom

To investigate the use of MMC in the classroom, Bobby started by designing a curriculum unit of lessons. He mapped the unit’s MMC activities to specific storytelling and programming learning objectives. The MMC activities were designed using design-based research, an approach in which something is designed and tested iteratively in real-world contexts. In practice that means Bobby collaborated with teachers and students to analyse, evaluate, and adapt the unit’s activities.

A list of learning objectives that could be covered by a multimodal composition activity.
Mapping of the MMC activities to storytelling and programming learning objectives

The first of two studies to explore the design and implementation of MMC activities was conducted with 10 K-5 students (age 9 to 11) and showed promising results. All students approached the composition task multimodally, using multiple representations for specific purposes. In other words, they conveyed different parts of their stories using either text, sound, or images.

Bobby found that broadcast messages and loops were the least used blocks among the group. As a consequence, he modified the curriculum unit to include additional scaffolding and instructional support on how and why the students might embed these elements.

A list of modifications to the MMC curriculum unit based on testing in a classroom.
Bobby modified the classroom unit based on findings from his first study

In the second study, the MMC activities were evaluated in a classroom of 28 K-5 students led by one teacher over two weeks. Findings indicated that students appreciated the longer multi-session project. The teacher reported being satisfied with the project work the learners completed and the skills they practised. The teacher also further integrated and adapted the unit into their classroom practice after the research project had been completed.

How might you use these research findings?

Factors that impacted the integration of storytelling and programming included the teacher’s confidence to teach programming as well as the teacher’s ability to differentiate between students and what kind of support they needed depending on their previous programming experience.

In addition, there are considerations regarding the curriculum. The school where the second study took place considered the activities in the unit to be literacy-light, as the English literacy curriculum is ‘text-heavy’ and the addition of multimodal elements ‘wastes’ opportunities to produce stories that are more text-based.

Woman teacher and female student at a laptop.

Bobby’s research indicates that MMC provides useful opportunities for learners to simultaneously pursue storytelling and programming goals, and the curriculum unit designed in the research proved adaptable for the teacher to integrate into their classroom practice. However, Bobby cautioned that there’s a need to carefully consider both the benefits and trade-offs when designing cross-curricular integration projects in order to ensure a fair representation of both subjects.

Can you see an opportunity for integrating programming and storytelling in your classroom? Let us know your thoughts or questions in the comments below.

You can watch Bobby’s full presentation:

And you can read his research paper Designing for Integrated K-5 Computing and Literacy through Story-making Activities (open access version).

You may also be interested in our pilot study on using storytelling to teach computing in primary school, which we conducted as part of our Gender Balance in Computing programme.

Join our next seminar on primary computing education

At our next seminar, we welcome Kate Farrell and Professor Judy Robertson (University of Edinburgh). This session will introduce you to how data literacy can be taught in primary and early-years education across different curricular areas. It will take place online on Tuesday 9 May at 17.00 UK time, don’t miss out and sign up now.

I want to sign up to join the seminar

Yo find out more about connecting research to practice for primary computing education, you can find other our upcoming monthly seminars on primary (K–5) teaching and learning and watch the recordings of previous seminars in this series.

The post Integrating primary computing and literacy through multimodal storytelling appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.