CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducation and Technology IntegrationDigital Education and Society

A research agenda for computational empowerment for emerging technology education

Open access
Smith, Rachel Charlotte, Schaper, Marie-Monique, Tamashiro, Mariana Aki, Van Mechelen, Maarten, Petersen, Marianne Graves, Iversen, Ole Sejer·2023·International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100616
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The article proposes a research agenda for computational empowerment for emerging technologies in the field of child–computer interaction (CCI). The research agenda includes three levels of operation for future studies: (1) participatory practices that engage teachers and students in co-developing and designing approaches for teaching and learning emerging technologies, (2) educational principles for integrating technological and societal aspects of emerging technologies, and (3) digital tools for engaging students in both construction of and critical reflection on emerging technologies. The research agenda was developed from longitudinal studies of emerging technology in Danish K–12 education, participatory design research with in-service teachers, development of novel tools and technologies, and literature studies of current CCI research. The paper addresses current gaps in the CCI literature and contributes a coherent approach and guiding questions for future CCI research on computational empowerment for emerging technologies in education.

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.ijcci.2023.100616

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Smith et al. [63] proposed a research agenda to build computational empowerment for youth, citizens, stakeholders, and new communities of practice, to engage with new developments, understandings and design of emerging technologies, such as AI.

    “Smith et al. [63] proposed a research agenda to build computational empowerment for youth, citizens, stakeholders, and new communities of practice, to engage with new developments, understandings and design of emerging technologies, such as AI.”

    From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as Smith et al. [63]

  • Participatory design has been slow in its direct engagement with AI.

    “Although participatory design has been slow in its direct engagement with AI, the focus on democratic technology design and computational empowerment at the community and policy levels has great potential to develop sustainable and decolonial approaches to AI in local global south environments [10, 16, 63].”

    From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as [63]

    Section 4.1 discusses research gaps in participatory approaches to emerging-technology education, and Section 4.3 describes limited access to tools for exploring AI and ML. Neither passage says participatory design as a field has been slow to engage directly with AI; searches for that assertion and close paraphrases found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 64

  1. Abdul, A., Vermeulen, J., Wang, D., Lim, Y., & Kankanballi, M. (2018). Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: A HCI research agenda. In Proceedings of CHI conference on on human factors in computing systems. New York, NY: ACM. Paper 582.
  2. Bilstrup, K. E. K., Kaspersen, M. H., Larsen, M. F., Bouvin, N. O., & Petersen, M. G. (2022). The best of both worlds: Designing a tiered hybrid interface for teaching machine learning in K-9 education. In Nordic human-computer interaction conference (pp. 1-12).
  3. Bilstrup, K.-E., Kaspersen, M. H., Lunding, M. S., Schaper, M.-M., Van Mechelen, M., Tamashiro, M. A., Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., & Petersen, M. G. (2022). Supporting critical data literacy in K-9 education: Three principles for enriching pupils' relationship to data. In Interaction design and children. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3501712.3530783, 225-36. Braga Portugal: ACM. · DOI
  4. Bilstrup, K. E. K., Kaspersen, M. H., & Petersen, M. G. (2020). Staging reflections on ethical dilemmas in machine learning: A card-based design workshop for high school students. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference (pp. 1211-1222).
  5. Bilstrup, K.-E., Sørensen, M. S. K., Kaspersen, M., & Petersen, M. G. (2022). Opportunities and challenges of teaching machine learning as a design material with the micro:bit. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2022. ACM.
  6. Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01596306.2011.601555 · DOI
  7. Charlton, P., & Avramides, K. (2016). Knowledge construction in computer science and engineering when learning through making. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2627567 · DOI
  8. Chin, J., & Callaghan, V. (2013). 'Educational living labs: A novel internet-of-things based approach to teaching and research.'. In 2013 9th international conference on intelligent environments (pp. 92-99). Athens, Greece: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ IE.2013. · DOI
  9. Chow, B. H. (2013). The virtual-reality campuses project. In Y. Cai (Ed.), 59-703D Immersive and interactive learning. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-4021-90-6_4. · DOI
  10. Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., Caspersen, M. E., & Smith, R. C. (2021). Computational empowerment. Computational thinking education in K-12. In Artificial intelligence Literacy and physical computing. MIT Press.
  11. Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., Hjorth, M., Smith, R. C., & Nielsen, H. D. (2023). Dorit: An analytical model for computational empowerment in K-9 education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Article 100599.
  12. Dindler, C., Smith, R. C., & Iversen, O. S. (2020). Computational empowerment: Participatory design in education. CoDesign, 16(1), 66-80.
  13. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (2011). What happens when the research ends? Factors related to the sustainability of a technology-infused mathematics curriculum. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30, 329-353.
  14. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Vols. 937-46)Austin Texas USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538. · DOI
  15. Glaroudis, D., Iossifides, A., Spyropoulou, N., Zaharakis, I. D., & Kameas, A. D. (2019). STEM learning and career orientation via IoT handson activities in secondary education. In 2019 IEEE international Conference on pervasive Computing and communications workshops (PerCom workshops) (Vols. 480-85)Kyoto, Japan: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2019.8730759. · DOI
  16. Göbl, B., Guenther, E. A., Kayali, F., & Frauenberger, C. (2023). Situating computational empowerment in formal education: A multi-perspective view. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100604 · DOI
  17. Goumopoulos, C., Fragou, O., Chanos, N., Delistavrou, K., Zaharakis, I., Stefanis, V., & Kameas, A. (2018). The UMI-sci-ed platform: Integrating UMI technologies to promote science education. In Proceedings of the 10th international Conference on computer supported education (pp. 78-90). Funchal, Madeira, Portugal: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/ 0006686200780090. · DOI
  18. Häfner, P., Häfner, V., & Ovtcharova, J. (2014). Experiencing physical and technical phenomena in schools using virtual reality driving simulator, 8524:50-61. Lecture notes in computer science. In Panayiotis Zaphiris, & Andri Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and collaboration technologies. Technology-rich Environments for Learning and collaboration. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-07485-6_6. · DOI
  19. Hitron, T., Orlev, Y., Wald, I., Ariel Shamir, Erel, H., & Zuckerman, O. (2019). Can children understand machine learning concepts?: The effect of uncovering black boxes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human Factors in computing systems (Vols. 1-11)Glasgow Scotland Uk: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3290605.3300645. · DOI
  20. Hjorth, M., Smith, R. C., Loi, D., Iversen, O. S., & Christensen, K. S. (2016). Educating the reflective educator: Design processes and digital fabrication for the classroom. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on creativity and fabrication in education (Vols. 26-33)Stanford CA USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003397.3003401. · DOI
  21. Holm Kanstrup, K., Wagner, M. L., Van Mechelen, M., Sejer Iversen, O., & Dindler, C. (2021). Scaling digital design literacy in K-9 education through the fellowship program. In FabLearn Europe/MakeEd 2021-an international conference on computing, design and making in education (pp. 1-9).
  22. Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2018). Empowering children through design and making: Towards protagonist role adoption. In Proceedings of the 15th participatory design conference: Full papers -Volume 1, 1-12. Hasselt and Genk Belgium: ACM. https://doi. org/10.1145/3210586.3210600 · DOI
  23. Iivari, N., Sharma, S., Ventä-Olkkonen, L., Molin-Juustila, T., Kuutti, K., Holappa, J., & Kinnunen, E. (2022). Critical agenda driving child-computer interaction research-taking a stock of the past and envisioning the future. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 32(June), Article 100408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijcci.2021.100408 · DOI
  24. Iivari, N., Ventä-Olkkonen, L., Hartikainen, H., Sharma, S., Lehto, E., Holappa, J., & Molin-Juustila, T. (2023). Computational empowerment of children: Design research on empowering and impactful designs by children. International Journal of Child- Computer Interaction, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100600 · DOI
  25. Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Blikstein, P. (2015). 'Digital fabrication in education: Expanding the research towards design and reflective practices.'. Int. J. Child-Comp. Interact., 5, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.01.001 · DOI
  26. Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2017). 'Child as protagonist: Expanding the role of children in participatory design.'. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on interaction Design and children (Vols. 27-37)Stanford California USA: ACM. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079725. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2018). 'From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21 st century PD agenda.'. In Proceedings of the 15th participatory design conference: Full papers (Volume 1, pp. 1-11). Hasselt and Genk Belgium: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592. · DOI
  28. Kafai, Y., Proctor, C., & Lui, D. (2020). From theory bias to theory dialogue: Embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education. ACM Inroads, 2020, 47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381887 · DOI
  29. Kaspersen, M. H., Bilstrup, K. E. K., & Petersen, M. G. (2021). The machine learning machine: A tangible user interface for teaching machine learning. In Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 1-12).
  30. Katterfeldt, E.-S., Dittert, N., & Schelhowe, H. (2015). Designing digital fabrication learning environments for bildung: Implications from ten years of physical computing workshops. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5 (September), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.001 · DOI
  31. Kay, M., Kola, T., Hullman, J. R., & Munson, S. A. (2016). When (ish) is my bus?: User- centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on human Factors in computing systems (pp. 5092-5103). San Jose California USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2858036.2858558. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lechelt, Z., Rogers, Y., Marquardt, N., & Shum, V. (2016). ConnectUs: A new toolkit for teaching about the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. San Jose California USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2890241, 3711-14. · DOI
  33. Litts, B. K., Chauhan, A., Mortensen, C. K., & Matthias, K. (2019). 'I'm drowning in squirrels!: How children embody and debug computational algorithms through designing mixed reality games.'. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international Conference on interaction Design and children. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3311927.3323129, 267-73. Boise ID USA: ACM. · DOI
  34. Lunding, M. S., Jens Emil, S. G., Karl-Emil, K. B., Marie-Louise Stisen, K. S., & Marianne, G. P. (2022). ExposAR: Bringing augmented reality to the computational thinking agenda through a collaborative authoring tool. In CHI Conference on human Factors in computing systems (Vols. 1-14)New Orleans LA USA: ACM. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3491102.3517636. · DOI
  35. Mariescu-Istodor, R., & Jormanainen, I. (2019). 'Machine learning for high school students.'. In Proceedings of the 19th koli calling international Conference on computing education research (Vols. 1-9)Koli Finland: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3364510.3364520. · DOI
  36. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (1st ed.). New York: Crown.
  37. Ota, K., Nakajima, T., & Suda, H. (2020). A short-term course of STEAM education through IoT exercises for high school students. In 2020 IEEE 44th annual computers, software, and applications conference (COMPSAC). Madrid, Spain: IEEE. https://doi. org/10.1109/COMPSAC48688.2020.00028, 153-57. · DOI
  38. Perry, J. (2019). 'Gaming the schoolyard: Promoting high school students' collaborative learning through geolocative mobile game design.'. In 13th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (Vol. 2, pp. 957-958), 2019.
  39. Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). 'What is an emerging technology?'. Research Policy, 44(10), 1827-1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006 · DOI
  40. Sabuncuoglu, A. (2020). 'Designing one year curriculum to teach artificial intelligence for middle school.'. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 96-102). Trondheim Norway: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387364. · DOI
  41. Schaper, M. M., Malinverni, L., & Valero, C. (2020). Robot presidents: Who should rule the world? Teaching critical thinking in AI through reflections upon food traditions. In Proceedings of the 11th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Shaping experiences (pp. 1-4). Shaping Society.
  42. Schaper, M. M., & Ruiz Garcia, A. (2023). Three recommendations to engage at-risk students in critical reflection on intelligent technologies through remote learning. In Extended abstracts of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-8).
  43. Schaper, M.-M., Smith, R. C., Tamashiro, M. A., Van Mechelen, M., Lunding, M., Bilstrup, K.-E., Kaspersen, M. H., Jensen, K. L., Petersen, M. G., & Iversen, O. S. (2022). 'Computational empowerment in practice: Scaffolding teenagers' learning about emerging technologies and their ethical and societal impact.'. In International Journal of child-computer interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100537 · DOI
  44. Schaper, M. M., Smith, R. C., van Mechelen, M., Tamashiro, M., & Iversen, O. S. (2023). Co-designing sustainable practices for emerging technologies education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023- 09857-3 · DOI
  45. Schaper, M. M., Tamashiro, M. A., Smith, R. C., Van Mechelen, M., & Iversen, O. S. (2023). Five design recommendations for teaching teenagers' about artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM interaction design and children conference (pp. 298-309).
  46. Scheepmaker, L., Kay, K., Frauenberger, C., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2021). 'Leaving the field: Designing a socio-material toolkit for teachers to continue to design technology with children.'. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on human Factors in computing systems (Vols. 1-14)Yokohama Japan: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3411764.3445462. · DOI
  47. Schelhowe, H. (2008). Digitale medien als kulturelle medien: Medien zum Be-greifen wesentlicher konzepte der Gegenwart. In Johannes Fromme, & Werner Sesink (Eds.), Pädagogische Medientheorie (pp. 95-113). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90971-4_6. · DOI
  48. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York: Routledge.
  49. Smith, R. C. (2022). Editorial: Design Anthropology, Design Studies, 80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.destud.2022.101081 · DOI
  50. Smith, R. C., Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. (2020). When participatory design becomes policy: Technology comprehension in Danish education. In Proceedings of the 16th participatory design conference 2020 -participation(s) otherwise (Vol. 1, pp. 148-158). Manizales Colombia: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385011. · DOI
  51. Smith, R. C., Kasper Tang, V., Otto, T., Kjaersgaard, M. G., Halse, J., & Binder, T. (Eds.). (2016b). Design anthropological futures. London & New York: Routledge.
  52. Smith, R. C., & Ole, S. I. (2018). Participatory design for sustainable social change. Design Studies, 59(November), 9-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.005 · DOI
  53. Smith, R. C., Ole, S. I., & Hjorth, M. (2015). Design thinking for digital fabrication in education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 20-28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.10.002. September. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Smith, R. C., Ole, S. I., & Veeraswamy, R. (2016a). Impediments to digital fabrication in education: A study of teachers' role in digital fabrication. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJDLDC.2016010103 · DOI
  55. Tamashiro, M. A., Schaper, M. M., Jensen, A., Heick, R., Danielsen, B., Van Mechelen, M., … Iversen, O. S. (2023). Teaching technical and societal aspects of IoT-A case study using the Orbit IoT Kit. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM designing interactive systems conference (pp. 1236-1247).
  56. Tamashiro, M., Van Mechelen, M., Schaper, M. M., & Sejer Iversen, O. (2021). Introducing teenagers to machine learning through design fiction: An exploratory case study. In Interaction design and children (pp. 471-475).
  57. Tissenbaum, M., Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., & Clegg, T. (2021). The case for alternative endpoints in computing education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 1164-1177.
  58. Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). 'Envisioning AI for K-12 : What should every child know about AI?'. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(July), 9795-9799. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai. v33i01.33019795 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Van Mechelen, Maarten, M.-L. W., Baykal, G. E., Charlotte Smith, R., & Iversen, O. S. (2021). 'Digital design literacy in K-9 education: Experiences from pioneer teachers.'. In Interaction Design and children (Vols. 32-42)Athens Greece: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460696. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Van Mechelen, Maarten, G. E. B., Dindler, C., Eriksson, E., & Iversen, O. S. (2020). '18 Years of ethics in child-computer interaction research: A systematic literature review.'. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference. London United Kingdom: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394407, 161-83. · DOI
  61. Van Mechelen, Maarten, S. G., Hourcade, J. P., Elif Baykal, G., Gielen, M., Eriksson, E., Walsh, G., Read, J., & Iversen, O. S. (2020). 'Teaching the next generation of child-computer interaction researchers and designers.'. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM interaction Design and children conference: Extended abstracts (Vols. 69-76) London United Kingdom: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398068. · DOI
  62. Van Mechelen, Maarten, Smith, Rachel Charlotte, Schaper, Marie-Monique, Tamashiro, Mariana, Bilstrup, Karl-Emil, Lunding, Mille, Graves Petersen, Marianne, & Iversen, Ole Sejer (2022). Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education: A Future HCI Research Agenda. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact, 30(3). Article 47 (June 2023), 40 pages https://doi.org/10.1145/3569897. · DOI
  63. Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2020). Learning machine learning with very young children: Who is teaching whom? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 25(September), Article 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijcci.2020.100182 · DOI
  64. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (1st ed.). New York: PublicAffairs.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, R. C., Schaper, M.-M., Tamashiro, M. A., Van Mechelen, M., Petersen, M. G., & Iversen, O. S.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Schaper, Marie-Monique
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
38
Pages
100616
ISSN
2212-8689 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100616
OpenAlex
W4387873106
Cited by
62
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 2
FWCI
14.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori ObertUDL (University of Lleida) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Villum Foundation (28831)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
emerging technologies, child-computer interaction, technology education, participatory design, co-design with teachers, critical reflection on technology, digital tools, K-12 education, research agenda

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