Cited by 28Digital Education and SocietyInnovative Human-Technology InteractionHigher Education Practises and Engagement

Co-design Partners as Transformative Learners: Imagining Ideal Technology for Schools by Centering Speculative Relationships

Open access
Chang, Michael Alan, Wong, Richmond Y., Breideband, Thomas, Philip, Thomas M., McKoy, Ashieda, Cortez, Arturo, D'Mello, Sidney K.·2024·Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Emergent technologies like artificial intelligence have been proposed to address issues of inequity in schools, yet tend to ossify the status quo because they address needs within an already inequitable system. In this paper, we draw from speculative participatory approaches across HCI and the learning sciences, and present a novel approach to co-design that forefronts supporting historically minoritized youth in developing transformative agency to change their schools based on their valued hopes, practices, and concerns. We argue that when co-design spaces forefront relational development, expansive technological objects emerge as a byproduct. We present a case study of expansive dreaming with U.S. historically minoritized students about the use of artificial intelligence to support classroom collaboration. Methodologically, we demonstrate how physically visiting spaces of collective agency serves as a powerful perceptual bridge to imagining joyful, equitable possibilities for schooling. Our approach yields new visions for schooling and new metaphors for artificial intelligence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3613904.3642559

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, M. A., Wong, R. Y., Breideband, T., Philip, T. M., McKoy, A., Cortez, A., & D'Mello, S. K.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Institute of Cognitive Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, United States
Venue
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-11
Pages
1-15
OpenAlex
W4396833042
Cited by
28
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15
FWCI
10.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2019805)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
Keywords
co-design, speculative design, artificial intelligence in education, educational equity, transformative agency, relational development, classroom collaboration, collective agency

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