Cited by 49Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Teaching and Learning Programming

Learning Machine Learning with Personal Data Helps Stakeholders Ground Advocacy Arguments in Model Mechanics

Open access
Register, Yim, Ko, Amy J.·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Abstract

Machine learning systems are increasingly a part of everyday life, and often used to make critical and possibly harmful decisions that affect stakeholders of the models. Those affected need enough literacy to advocate for themselves when models make mistakes. To understand how to develop this literacy, this paper investigates three ways to teach ML concepts, using linear regression and gradient descent as an introduction to ML foundations. Those three ways include a basic Facts condition, mirroring a presentation or brochure about ML, an Impersonal condition which teaches ML using some hypothetical individual's data, and a Personal condition which teaches ML on the learner's own data in context. Next, we evaluated the effects on learners' ability to self-advocate against harmful ML models. Learners wrote hypothetical letters against poorly performing ML systems that may affect them in real-world scenarios. This study discovered that having learners learn about ML foundations with their own personal data resulted in learners better grounding their self-advocacy arguments in the mechanisms of machine learning when critiquing models in the 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 · 10.1145/3372782.3406252

Cites

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?

  • Register & Ko applied qualitative thematic analysis of students' open-ended responses about how machine learning systems work, as well as other aspects including ML model transparency, critical thinking and learners' interests and backgrounds.

    “Another study Register & Ko (2020) applied qualitative thematic analysis of students' open-ended responses about how machine learning systems work, as well as other aspects including ML model transparency, critical thinking and learners' interests and backgrounds.”

    From Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review (2021) · cites this paper as Register & Ko (2020)

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies agreed that AI literacy is less about programming or the intricacies of coding and machine learning algorithms, but at the same time it is more generalizable than simply knowing facts about ML systems.

    “Most studies agreed in the opinion that AI literacy is less about programming or the intricacies of coding and machine learning algorithms (e.g., Pucchio et al., 2021;Register & Ko, 2020;Wiljer & Hakim, 2019), but at the same time”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 49

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ruth E. Anderson, Michael D. Ernst, Robert Ordóñez, Paul Pham, and Ben Tribel- horn. 2015. A Data Programming CS1 Course. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 150-155. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677309 · DOI
  2. Austin Cory Bart, Dennis Kafura, Clifford A Shaffer, and Eli Tilevich. 2018. Rec- onciling the Promise and Pragmatics of Enhancing Computing Pedagogy with Data Science. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 1029-1034.
  3. Austin Cory Bart, Ryan Whitcomb, Dennis Kafura, Clifford A Shaffer, and Eli Tile- vich. 2017. Computing with corgis: Diverse, real-world datasets for introductory computing. ACM Inroads 8, 2 (2017), 66-72.
  4. Anna Brown, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Andrew To- bin, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2019. Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 41.
  5. National Research Council et al. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.
  6. 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.
  7. Erica Deahl. 2014. Better the data you know: Developing youth data literacy in schools and informal learning environments. Available at SSRN 2445621 (2014).
  8. John Dewey. 1986. Experience and education. In The Educational Forum, Vol. 50. Taylor & Francis, 241-252.
  9. Catherine D'Ignazio and Rahul Bhargava. 2016. DataBasic: Design principles, tools and activities for data literacy learners. The Journal of Community Infor- matics 12, 3 (2016).
  10. Stefania Druga, Sarah T Vu, Eesh Likhith, and Tammy Qiu. 2019. Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019. ACM, 104-111.
  11. Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2016. Feminist data visualization. In Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (VIS4DH), Baltimore. IEEE.
  12. Norma González, Luis C Moll, and Cathy Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
  13. Norma Gonzalez, Luis C Moll, Martha Floyd Tenery, Anna Rivera, Patricia Rendon, Raquel Gonzales, and Cathy Amanti. 1995. Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education 29, 4 (1995), 443-470.
  14. Dan Goodley. 2000. Self-advocacy in the lives of people with learning difficulties: The politics of resilience. Open University Press Buckingham.
  15. Dan Goodley. 2005. Empowerment, self-advocacy and resilience. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 9, 4 (2005), 333-343.
  16. Samantha Hautea, Sayamindu Dasgupta, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2017. Youth perspectives on critical data literacies. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 919-930.
  17. Birte Heinemann, Simone Opel, Lea Budde, Carsten Schulte, Daniel Frischemeier, Rolf Biehler, Susanne Podworny, and Thomas Wassong. 2018. Drafting a data science curriculum for secondary schools. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 1-5.
  18. Tom Hitron, Yoav Orlev, Iddo Wald, Ariel Shamir, Hadas Erel, and Oren Zucker- man. 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. ACM, 415.
  19. Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A design probe to understand how data scientists un- derstand machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 579.
  20. C. D. Kidd and C. Breazeal. 2004. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), Vol. 4. 3559-3564 vol.4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004. 1389967 · DOI
  21. Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2017. Human decisions and machine predictions. The quarterly journal of economics 133, 1 (2017), 237-293.
  22. Engineering National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, et al. 2018. How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
  23. Greg L Nelson, Benjamin Xie, and Amy J Ko. 2017. Comprehension first: eval- uating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 2-11.
  24. Evan M Peck, Sofia E Ayuso, and Omar El-Etr. 2019. Data is Personal: Attitudes and Perceptions of Data Visualization in Rural Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 244.
  25. Javier Calzada Prado and Miguel Ángel Marzal. 2013. Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: Core competencies and contents. Libri 63, 2 (2013), 123-134.
  26. Milo Schield. 2004. Information literacy, statistical literacy and data literacy. In Iassist Quarterly (IQ). Citeseer.
  27. Anneliese A Singh, Sarah E Meng, and Anthony W Hansen. 2014. "I am my own gender": Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of counseling & development 92, 2 (2014), 208-218.
  28. Jenny Slater. 2012. Self-advocacy and socially just pedagogy. Disability Studies Quarterly 32, 1 (2012).
  29. Elisabeth Sulmont, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Jeremy R Cooperstock. 2019. Can You Teach Me To Machine Learn?. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 948-954.
  30. Elisabeth Sulmont, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Jeremy R Cooperstock. 2019. What is hard about teaching machine learning to non-majors? Insights from classifying instructors' learning goals. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 4 (2019), 1-16.
  31. Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert. 1990. Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 16, 1 (1990), 128-157.
  32. Thomas Way, Lillian Cassel, Paula Matuszek, Mary-Angela Papalaskari, Divya Bonagiri, and Aravinda Gaddam. 2016. Broader and earlier access to machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 362-362.
  33. Thomas Way, Mary-Angela Papalaskari, Lillian Cassel, Paula Matuszek, Carol Weiss, and Yamini Praveena Tella. 2017. Machine learning modules for all disci- plines. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 84-85.
  34. Michelle Hoda Wilkerson and Joseph L Polman. 2020. Situating data science: Exploring how relationships to data shape learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 29, 1 (2020), 1-10.
  35. Benjamin Xie, Greg L Nelson, and Amy J Ko. 2018. An explicit strategy to scaffold novice program tracing. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 344-349.
  36. Moira L Zellner, Leilah B Lyons, Charles J Hoch, Jennifer Weizeorick, Carl Kunda, and Daniel C Milz. 2012. Modeling, Learning, and Planning Together: An Applica- tion of Participatory Agent-based Modeling to Environmental Planning. Journal of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association 24, 1 (2012).
  37. Baobao Zhang and Allan Dafoe. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends. Available at SSRN 3312874 (2019).
  38. Abigail Zimmermann-Niefield, Makenna Turner, Bridget Murphy, Shaun K Kane, and R Benjamin Shapiro. 2019. Youth Learning Machine Learning through Building Models of Athletic Moves. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 121-132.

Authors
Register, Y., & Ko, A. J.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-08-07
Pages
67-78
OpenAlex
W3047690188
Cited by
49
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1735123, 1539179, 1703304, 1836813)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
personal data, self-advocacy, model criticism, linear regression, gradient descent, stakeholder advocacy

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