pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21995 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Emergent Technology, Emergent Critique: Students and Teachers Developing Critical AI Literacy through Participatory Design around Generative AI

Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez , Eva Durall Gazulla , Kylie Peppler
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords critical AI literacyparticipatory designgenerative AIhigh school educationyouth agencyco-designAI in classrooms
0
0 comments X

The pith

In a five-week participatory design program, three Latinx high school students and three teachers developed critical AI literacy by jointly designing how generative AI tools would enter their classrooms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports on students and teachers negotiating generative AI use through hands-on design work rather than top-down decisions. Analysis of recordings and artifacts showed three practices arising directly from that work: unsettling shared assumptions about what AI can and cannot do, drawing on each group's distinct expertise to learn together, and anchoring critiques in participants' own cultural backgrounds and creative activities. The authors present this as evidence that youth can act as active shapers of both tool adoption and tool scrutiny in schools. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete alternative to passive rollout of new technologies in education.

Core claim

Students and teachers developed three critical AI literacy practices through the design work itself: collectively unsettling assumptions about AI, mutual learning through complementary expertise, and grounding AI critique in cultural knowledge and creative practice. This case contributes strategies for designing with youth around an emergent technology like generative AI toward critical AI literacy and extends work on youth as protagonists by showing how the approach enables students to shape both the adoption and the interrogation of these tools in their learning environments.

What carries the argument

The participatory design process itself, which functions as the setting where students and teachers jointly negotiate AI tool use and thereby generate critical literacy practices.

If this is right

  • Critical AI literacy can develop through design activities rather than separate lessons.
  • Students can influence both how generative AI enters classrooms and how it is questioned there.
  • Grounding critique in cultural and creative knowledge makes AI literacy more relevant to participants.
  • Participatory design supplies reusable strategies for handling other emergent classroom technologies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same design-based approach could be tested with other age groups or subject areas to see if the practices hold.
  • If the practices prove stable across sites, they could inform teacher professional development modules on AI.
  • Extending the model to include families or community members might add further cultural grounding to the critique.

Load-bearing premise

The three observed practices are caused by the participatory design process and would appear in other student-teacher groups beyond this small California high school cohort.

What would settle it

A comparison study in which a matched group of students and teachers discusses generative AI without participating in design activities to decide its classroom role, checking whether the same three practices still emerge at comparable rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21995 by Eva Durall Gazulla, Kylie Peppler, Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two co-designed artifacts showing critical AI literacy practices materialized in curriculum. Left: León and Klaus’s science [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Who gets to decide how generative AI tools enter students' classrooms? We report on a five-week participatory design program in which three 11th-grade Latinx students and three high school teachers in California negotiated how generative AI tools would be used and taught about in learning environments. Drawing on video recordings and designed artifacts, we ask: what critical AI literacy practices emerged as students and teachers jointly designed how generative AI tools would be used and taught about? Our analysis reveals three practices: collectively unsettling assumptions about AI, mutual learning through complementary expertise, and grounding AI critique in cultural knowledge and creative practice. Students and teachers developed these practices through the design work itself. This case contributes strategies for designing with youth around an emergent technology like generative AI toward critical AI literacy. It extends work on youth as protagonists by showing how this approach enables students to shape both the adoption and the interrogation of these tools in their learning environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a qualitative case study of a five-week participatory design program involving three 11th-grade Latinx students and three high school teachers in California. Drawing on video recordings and designed artifacts, the authors identify three critical AI literacy practices that emerged as participants jointly designed the use and teaching of generative AI tools: collectively unsettling assumptions about AI, mutual learning through complementary expertise, and grounding AI critique in cultural knowledge and creative practice. These practices are described as having developed through the design activities themselves, and the work positions the case as contributing practical strategies for engaging youth in shaping and interrogating emergent AI technologies in educational settings.

Significance. If the practices are reliably derived from the data, the study provides a concrete empirical example of how participatory design can support the development of critical AI literacy among students and teachers. It extends prior work on youth as protagonists in technology design by demonstrating their role in both adoption and critique of generative AI, offering actionable insights for educators and designers working with emergent technologies in schools.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and methods/analysis description] The abstract (and by extension the methods/analysis description) states that 'our analysis reveals three practices' but provides no details on the analytical process, coding methods, theme derivation, or how the practices were identified from the video recordings and artifacts. This transparency gap is load-bearing for assessing the validity and reproducibility of the central descriptive claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Discussion or conclusion] The small sample (three students, three teachers) and single-site California high school context are appropriate for a case study but would benefit from an explicit limitations paragraph discussing transferability of the observed practices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and encouraging review, including the positive assessment of the study's significance and the recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and methods/analysis description] The abstract (and by extension the methods/analysis description) states that 'our analysis reveals three practices' but provides no details on the analytical process, coding methods, theme derivation, or how the practices were identified from the video recordings and artifacts. This transparency gap is load-bearing for assessing the validity and reproducibility of the central descriptive claim.

    Authors: We agree that greater transparency regarding the analytical process is necessary to support assessment of the findings' validity. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section with a detailed account of our qualitative analysis procedures. This will include the iterative coding approach applied to the video recordings and artifacts, the process of theme derivation, and the specific data instances and analytic steps through which the three practices were identified and substantiated. We will also add a concise reference to the analysis approach in the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely descriptive qualitative case study

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative empirical case study reporting practices observed in one five-week participatory design program with three students and three teachers. The three practices (collectively unsettling assumptions about AI, mutual learning through complementary expertise, and grounding AI critique in cultural knowledge and creative practice) are presented as emerging directly from analysis of video recordings and designed artifacts collected in that specific setting. There are no mathematical models, equations, parameter fittings, predictions, or derivations that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claims are descriptive and context-specific rather than general or causal; the work does not invoke self-citations as load-bearing justification for its findings, nor does it rename known results or smuggle in ansatzes. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an honest report of observed data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a qualitative study, the work rests on interpretive assumptions common in HCI research about how design activities lead to learning and critique. No free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Participatory design processes enable the emergence of critical AI literacy practices in educational settings.
    The paper's central claim relies on this assumption about the outcomes of participatory design with students and teachers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1297 out tokens · 39287 ms · 2026-05-09T20:38:48.241655+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It’s Like They Are Using Our Data Against Us

    Ezequiel Aleman and Ricardo Martinez. 2024. “It’s Like They Are Using Our Data Against Us.” Counter-Cartographies of AI Literacy.Reading Research Quarterly59, 4 (2024), 665–677. doi:10.1002/rrq.574

    work page doi:10.1002/rrq.574 2024

  2. [2]

    Ezequiel Aleman, Ricardo Martínez, Meltem Dilek, and Erhan Baran. 2025. Directions for Navigating Critical AI Literacy in Teacher Education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education37 (2025), 1460–1488. doi:10.1007/s12528-025-09471-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s12528-025-09471-3 2025

  3. [3]

    Najme Babai, Eva Durall Gazulla, Netta Iivari, and Marianne Kinnula. 2025. Navigating the Future of Data-Driven Systems: Children’s Perspectives on Data and Agency. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY, 124–139. doi:10.1145/ 3713043.3728844

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Luke Connelly, Line Have Musaeus, Magnus Høholt Kaspersen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2025. From Automation to Integration: Designing Opportunities for Students and Teachers to Act Skillfully Around AI in Existing K-12 Subjects. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY. d...

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3728857 2025

  5. [5]

    Zhenyao Cai, Ariel Han, Xiaofei Zhou, Eva Durall Gazulla, and Kylie Peppler. 2025. Child-AI Co-Creation: A Review of the Current Research Landscape and a Proposal for Six Design Considerations. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY, 916–922. doi:10.1145/3713043.3731506

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3731506 2025

  6. [6]

    Aayushi Dangol, Robert Wolfe, Runhua Zhao, JaeWon Kim, Trushaa Ramanan, Katie Davis, and Julie A. Kientz. 2025. Children’s Mental Models of AI Reasoning: Implications for AI Literacy Education. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3713043.3728856

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3728856 2025

  7. [7]

    Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Mikkel Hjorth, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Hannah Djúrsø Nielsen. 2023. DORIT: An Analytical Model for Computational Empowerment in K-9 Education.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction37 (2023), 100599. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100599

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100599 2023

  8. [8]

    Christian Dindler, Rachel Smith, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2020. Computational Empowerment: Participatory Design in Education.CoDesign16, 1 (2020), 66–80. doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1722173

    work page doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1722173 2020

  9. [9]

    Allison Druin. 2002. The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology.Behaviour and Information Technology21, 1 (2002), 1–25

    2002

  10. [10]

    2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming

    Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2013

  11. [11]

    Christopher Frauenberger, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Doris Loi, Laura Forlano, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2025. Emerging Technologies and Alternative Futures. InRoutledge International Handbook of Contemporary Participatory Design. Routledge, London, 139–164

    2025

  12. [12]

    Eva Durall Gazulla, Noora Hirvonen, Sumita Sharma, Heidi Hartikainen, Ville Jylhä, Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula, and Aizhan Baizhanova. 2025. Youth Perspectives on Technology Ethics: Analysis of Teens’ Ethical Reflections on AI in Learning Activities.Behaviour & Information Technology 44, 5 (2025), 888–911. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2024.2350666

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2350666 2025

  13. [13]

    Ariel Han and Zhenyao Cai. 2025. Empowering Children’s AI Literacy Through Co-Creating Stories with LLM. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY. doi:10.1145/3713043.3731520

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3731520 2025

  14. [14]

    We Were Proud of Our Idea

    Heidi Hartikainen, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Marianne Kinnula, and Netta Iivari. 2023. “We Were Proud of Our Idea”: How Teens and Teachers Gained Value in an Entrepreneurship and Making Project.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction35 (2023), 100552. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100552 Manuscript submitted to ACM 8 Ojeda-Ramirez et al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100552 2023

  15. [15]

    Netta Iivari, Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Marie-Monique Schaper, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Heidi Hartikainen, Sumita Sharma, Marianne Kinnula, Essi Lehto, Jenni Holappa, and Tonja Molin-Juustila. 2024. Transformative Agency: The Next Step Towards Children’s Computational Empowerment. InProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and C...

    work page doi:10.1145/3628516.3655806 2024

  16. [16]

    Netta Iivari and Marianne Kinnula. 2018. Empowering Children through Design and Making: Towards Protagonist Role Adoption. InProceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers (PDC ’18). ACM, New York, NY, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3210586.3210600

    work page doi:10.1145/3210586.3210600 2018

  17. [17]

    Netta Iivari, Sumita Sharma, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Tonja Molin-Juustila, Kari Kuutti, Jenni Holappa, and Essi Kinnunen. 2022. Critical Agenda Driving Child–Computer Interaction Research: Taking a Stock of the Past and Envisioning the Future.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction32 (2022), 100408. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100408

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100408 2022

  18. [18]

    Netta Iivari, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Heidi Hartikainen, Sumita Sharma, Essi Lehto, Jenni Holappa, and Tonja Molin-Juustila. 2023. Computational Empowerment of Children: Design Research on Empowering and Impactful Designs by Children.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 37 (2023), 100600. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100600

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100600 2023

  19. [19]

    Netta Iivari, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Sumita Sharma, Heidi Hartikainen, Jenni Holappa, and Essi Lehto. 2024. Fostering Children’s Critical Literacy in Computing Education. InProceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Learning, Design and Technology (LDT ’24). ACM, New York, NY, 57–65. doi:10.1145/3663433.3663462

    work page doi:10.1145/3663433.3663462 2024

  20. [20]

    Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2017. Child as Protagonist: Expanding the Role of Children in Participatory Design. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’17). ACM, New York, NY, 27–37. doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725

    work page doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725 2017

  21. [21]

    Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2018. From Computational Thinking to Computational Empowerment: A 21st Century Competency for the AI Era. InProceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers (PDC ’18). ACM, New York, NY, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3210586.3210592

    work page doi:10.1145/3210586.3210592 2018

  22. [22]

    Yasmin B. Kafai. 1995.Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children’s Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    1995

  23. [23]

    Kafai, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Mia S

    Yasmin B. Kafai, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Mia S. Shaw, and Luis Morales-Navarro. 2021. CodeQuilt: Designing an Hour of Code Activity for Creative and Critical Engagement with Computing. InProceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’21). ACM, New York, NY. doi:10.1145/3459990.3465187

    work page doi:10.1145/3459990.3465187 2021

  24. [24]

    Matin Mahboob Kanafi, Marianne Kinnula, and Netta Iivari. 2021. Re-Defining Characteristics of a Design Protagonist: Elements of Children’s Design Capital. InProceedings of the BCS 34th British HCI Conference 2021. British Computer Society, UK. doi:10.14236/ewic/HCI2021.24

    work page doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2021.24 2021

  25. [25]

    How Can We Learn and Use AI at the Same Time?

    Sadhbh Kenny, Alissa N. Antle, Gillian Russell, Alexandra Kitson, and Annemiek Veldhuis. 2025. Beyond the Algorithm: Speculative Approaches to Critical AI Literacies with Diverse Youth. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY. doi:10.1145/3713043.3727052

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3727052 2025

  26. [26]

    1991.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    1991

  27. [27]

    Charles Logan. 2024. Learning About and Against Generative AI Through Mapping Generative AI’s Ecologies and Developing a Luddite Praxis. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS ’24). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Buffalo, NY

    2024

  28. [28]

    Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 2020

  29. [29]

    Duri Long, Sophie Rollins, Jasmin Ali-Diaz, Katherine Hancock, Samnang Nuonsinoeun, Jessica Roberts, and Brian Magerko. 2023. Fostering AI Literacy with Embodiment & Creativity: From Activity Boxes to Museum Exhibits. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’23). ACM, New York, NY, 727–731. doi:10.1145/3585088.3594495

    work page doi:10.1145/3585088.3594495 2023

  30. [30]

    Matin Mahboob Kanafi, Netta Iivari, and Marianne Kinnula. 2022. Brave and Kind Superheroes: Children’s Reflections on the Design Protagonist Role. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022. ACM, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 87–97. doi:10.1145/3536169.3537783

    work page doi:10.1145/3536169.3537783 2022

  31. [31]

    They Were Learning from Us as We Were Learning from Them

    Areej Mawasi, William Penuel, Arturo Cortez, and Ashieda McKoy. 2023. “They Were Learning from Us as We Were Learning from Them”: Perceived Experiences in Co-Design Process.Mind, Culture, and Activity30, 3–4 (2023), 191–208. doi:10.1080/10749039.2023.2246039

    work page doi:10.1080/10749039.2023.2246039 2023

  32. [32]

    Maarten Van Mechelen, Line Have Musaeus, Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Arthur Hjorth. 2021. A Systematic Review of Empowerment in Child-Computer Interaction Research. InProceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’21). ACM, New York, NY, 119–130. doi:10.1145/3459990.3460701

    work page doi:10.1145/3459990.3460701 2021

  33. [33]

    Kafai, Vedya Konda, and Danaë Metaxa

    Luis Morales-Navarro, Yasmin B. Kafai, Vedya Konda, and Danaë Metaxa. 2024. Youth as Peer Auditors: Engaging Teenagers with Algorithm Auditing of Machine Learning Applications. InProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’24). ACM, New York, NY, 560–573. doi:10.1145/3628516.3655752

    work page doi:10.1145/3628516.3655752 2024

  34. [34]

    Noh, and Yasmin Kafai

    Luis Morales-Navarro, Daniel J. Noh, and Yasmin Kafai. 2025. Building babyGPTs: Youth Engaging in Data Practices and Ethical Considerations through the Construction of Generative Language Models. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY, 1021–1026. doi:10.1145/3713043.3731525

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3731525 2025

  35. [35]

    Noh, and Yasmin B

    Luis Morales-Navarro, Daniel J. Noh, and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2025. High School Students Building babyGPTs: Engaging in Data Practices and Addressing Ethical Issues through the Construction of Generative Language Models.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction45 (2025), 100769. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2025.100769

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2025.100769 2025

  36. [36]

    Kafai, Mia Shaw, and Nichole Pinkard

    Luis Morales-Navarro, Naomi Thompson, Yasmin B. Kafai, Mia Shaw, and Nichole Pinkard. 2022. Reimagining and Co-Designing with Youth an Hour of Code Activity for Critical Engagement with Computing. InProceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’22). ACM, New York, NY, 288–296. doi:10.1145/3501712.3529730 Manuscript su...

    work page doi:10.1145/3501712.3529730 2022

  37. [37]

    You Can Actually Do Something

    Daniel J Noh, Deborah A Fields, Yasmin B Kafai, and Danaé Metaxa. 2026. " You Can Actually Do Something”: Shifts in High School Computer Science Teachers’ Conceptions of AI/ML Systems and Algorithmic Justice.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16123(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Noh, Deborah A

    Daniel J. Noh, Deborah A. Fields, Luis Morales-Navarro, Alexis M. Cabrera-Sutch, Yasmin B. Kafai, and Danaë Metaxa. 2025. Youth as Advisors in Participatory Design: Situating Teens’ Expertise in Everyday Algorithm Auditing with Teachers and Researchers. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY, 415–...

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3728849 2025

  39. [39]

    Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez, Daniel Ritchie, and Mark Warschauer. 2024. AI Literacy for Multilingual Learners: Storytelling, Role-playing, and Programming.The CATESOL Journal35, 1 (2024). doi:10.5070/B5.35861

    work page doi:10.5070/b5.35861 2024

  40. [40]

    Leong, Jeannette Durick, and Treffyn Koreshoff

    Toni Robertson, Tuck W. Leong, Jeannette Durick, and Treffyn Koreshoff. 2014. Mutual Learning as a Resource for Research Design. InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts (PDC ’14), Vol. 2. ACM, New York, NY, 25–28. doi:10.1145/2662155.2662181

    work page doi:10.1145/2662155.2662181 2014

  41. [41]

    Daniele Rotolo, Diana Hicks, and Ben R. Martin. 2015. What Is an Emerging Technology?Research Policy44, 10 (2015), 1827–1843. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2015.06.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2015

  42. [42]

    Zeising, Mike Tissenbaum, Elizabeth Bonsignore, and Jason Yip

    Marie-Monique Schaper, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen, Christopher Frauenberger, Netta Iivari, A. Zeising, Mike Tissenbaum, Elizabeth Bonsignore, and Jason Yip. 2023. Computational Empowerment and Children: Expanding Empowerment, Agency and Participation in Computation. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction38 (2023), 100617. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100617 2023

  43. [43]

    Ekta Shokeen, Christian Dindler, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2025. Sure, It Works in Practice, but Does It Work in Theory? Grounding the Protagonist Perspective in Transformative Agency. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25). ACM, New York, NY. doi:10.1145/3713043.3728851

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3728851 2025

  44. [44]

    Rachel Charlotte Smith, Marie-Monique Schaper, Mariana Aki Tamashiro, Maarten Van Mechelen, Marianne Graves Petersen, and Ole Sejer Iversen

  45. [45]

    doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100616

    A Research Agenda for Computational Empowerment for Emerging Technology Education.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 38 (2024), 100616. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100616

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100616 2024

  46. [46]

    Sepehr Vakil and Jennifer Higgs. 2019. It’s About Power: A Call to Rethink Ethics and Equity in Computing Education.Commun. ACM62, 3 (2019), 31–33. doi:10.1145/3306617

    work page doi:10.1145/3306617 2019

  47. [47]

    Annemiek Veldhuis, Priscilla Lo, Sadhbh Kenny, and Alissa N. Antle. 2025. Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy: A Scoping Review and Framework Synthesis.International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction43 (2025), 100708. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100708

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100708 2025

  48. [48]

    Weixelbraun, Barbara Göbl, Matthias Steinböck, Mirjam Duvivié, and Fares Kayali

    Petra F. Weixelbraun, Barbara Göbl, Matthias Steinböck, Mirjam Duvivié, and Fares Kayali. 2024. Discussing the Protagonist Role of Students in Game-Based Learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CHI PLAY (2024), 1–24. doi:10.1145/3677065

    work page doi:10.1145/3677065 2024

  49. [49]

    Iris Heung Yue Yim. 2024. A Critical Review of Teaching and Learning Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy: Developing an Intelligence-Based AI Literacy Framework for Primary School Education.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence7 (2024), 100319. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100319

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100319 2024

  50. [50]

    Robert K. Yin. 2018.Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods(6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2018