CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Digital Education and SocietyArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

How can we design for learning in an AI world?

Open access
Carvalho, Lucila, Martinez-Maldonado, Roberto, Tsai, Yi-Shan, Markauskaite, Lina, De Laat, Maarten·2022·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Fast improvements in computing power and Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms enable us to automate important decisions that shape our everyday lives, and drive workplace transformations. It is predicted that many people will find themselves unprepared to deal with high degrees of change and uncertainty, increasingly posed by AI in some sectors. A critical educational challenge involves figuring out how to support young generations to develop the capabilities that they will need to adapt to, and innovate in, a world with AI. This article argues that both educators and learners should be involved not only in learning but also in co-designing for learning in an AI world. Further, they together should explore the knowledge, goals and actions that could help people shape future AI scenarios, and learn to deal with high degrees of uncertainty. A key contribution of the paper is a re-conceptualization of design for learning in an AI world, which explores a problem space of educational design, and illustrates how educators and learners can work together to re-imagine education futures in an AI world. As part of this problem space, the paper discusses underpinning philosophies (the capability approach and value creation), a high-level pedagogy (with an emphasis on co-creation), pedagogical strategies (speculative pedagogies), and pedagogical tactics (AI scenarios). It then proposes a design framework (ACAD) to support educators and learners' discussions about design for learning in an AI world. This participatory design approach aims to sensitize people for what education may mean, for whom, and how learning with AI may look like, and it highlights the active engagement of educators and learners in co-designing a future they desire, to help shape learning and living in an AI world.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  2. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77-91). PMLR.
  3. Dutra Gonçalves, D. R. (2016). Social dreaming: From inquiry to insight. Masters thesis.
  4. Glenn, J. C., & Gordon, T. J. (Eds.). (2009). Futures research methodology (3rd ed.). The Millennium Project.
  5. GO-Science. (2017). Tools for futures thinking and foresight across UK Government. UK: Government office for Science. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://assets.publishi ng.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 674209/futures-toolkit-edition-1.pdf.
  6. Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2013). Design anthropology: Theory and practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
  7. Long, S., & Manley, J. (Eds.). (2019). Social dreaming: Philosophy, research, theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429449277. · DOI
  8. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.
  9. van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario development: A typology of approaches. In OECD (Ed.), Think scenarios, rethink education. Schooling for Tomorrow. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.1787/9789264023642-en. OECD. (2001). What schools for the future? Paris: Schooling for Tomorrow, OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/what-schools-for-the-futu re_9789264195004-en. OECD. (2006). Think scenarios, rethink education. Paris: Schooling for Tomorrow, OECD Publishing. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.1787/978926402364 2-en. · DOI
  10. Ripley, D., Markauskaite, L., Arthars, N., & Khosronejad, M. (2021). Co-designing for learning across disciplines: Design principles for student-led innovation. In Paper presented at the 19th biennial EARLI conference for research on learning and instruction, Goteborg, Sweden.
  11. Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). July). Envisioning AI for k-12: What should every child know about AI?. In , Vol. 33. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 9795-9799). No. 01. UNESCO. (2019). Beijing consensus on artificial intelligence and education. France: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368303.
  12. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Rapport (Vol. 18). Open University of the Netherlands.
  13. Yeoman, P. (2015). Habits & habitats: An ethnography of learning entanglement. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Sydney.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carvalho, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y.-S., Markauskaite, L., & De Laat, M.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Carvalho, Lucila
ORCID
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022
Volume
3
Pages
100053
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053
OpenAlex
W4211262078
Cited by
128
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 8
FWCI
27.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Massey Research Online (Massey University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Jacobs Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
design for learning, artificial intelligence in education, co-design, speculative pedagogy, capability approach, value creation, uncertainty, future of education, participatory design, AI-assisted learning, design framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review