Developing a Conversational Agent to Explore Machine Learning Concepts

Ayse Kok  Arslan

doi:10.24297/ijct.v21i.9000

Authors

Ayse Kok Arslan University of Oxford Alumni- (Research Group, Alumni Association, Northern California, USA)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24297/ijct.v21i.9000

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, neural nets, construction, visual editing, Machine learning

Abstract

This study aims to introduce a discussion platform and curriculum designed to help people understand how machines learn. Research shows how to train an agent through dialogue and understand how information is represented using visualization. This paper starts by providing a comprehensive definition of AI literacy based on existing research and integrates a wide range of different subject documents into a set of key AI literacy skills to develop a user-centered AI. This functionality and structural considerations are organized into a conceptual framework based on the literature. Contributions to this paper can be used to initiate discussion and guide future research on AI learning within the computer science community.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy. The Information Society, 10(2), 101–127.

Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power. Beyond territory and networks. Routledge.

Bratton, B. (2015). The Stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Bucher, T. (2018). If...then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.

Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1).

Decuypere, M. (2019a). Open Education platforms: Theoretical ideas, digital operations and the figure of the open learner. European Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 439–460.

Dieter, M., Gerlitz, C., Helmond, A., Tkacz, N., Vlist, F., Der, V., & Weltevrede, E. (2018). Store, interface, package, connection : Methods and propositions for multi-situated app studies. CRC Media of Cooperation Working Paper Series No 4.

Drucker, J. (2020). Visualization and Interpretation: Humanistic Approaches to Display. MIT Press. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1)

Mathias, Decuypere The Topologies of Data Practices: A Methodological Introduction Fedorova, K. (2020). Tactics of Interfacing. Encoding Affect in Art and Technology. MIT Press. Goriunova, O. (2019). The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6), 125–145.

Gulson, K. N., Lewis, S., Lingard, B., Lubienski, C., Takayama, K., & Webb, P. T. (2017). Policy mobilities and methodology: a proposition for inventive methods in education policy studies. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 224–241.

Gulson, K. N., & Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of education policy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37, 350–366.

Hartong, S. (2020). The power of relation-making: insights into the production and operation of digital school performance platforms in the US. Critical Studies in Education, 00(00), 1–16.

Hartong, S., & Förschler, A. (2019). Opening the black box of data-based school monitoring: Data infrastructures, flows and practices in state education agencies. Big Data & Society, 6(1),

Lash, S. (2012). Deforming the Figure: Topology and the Social Imaginary. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 261–287.

Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge & Society, 6, 1–40. Retrieved from http://hci.ucsd.edu/10/readings/Latour(1986).pdf

Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Psychology Press.

Lewis, S. (2020). Providing a platform for “what works”: Platform-based governance and the reshaping of teacher learning through the OECD’s PISA4U. Comparative Education, 56(4).

Lewis, S., & Hardy, I. (2017). Tracking the Topological: The Effects of Standardised Data Upon Teachers’ Practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(2), 219–238.

Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media and Society, 20(3), 881–900.

Lindh, M., & Nolin, J. (2016). Information We Collect: Surveillance and Privacy in the Implementation of Google Apps for Education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(6),

Lury, C., & Day, S. (2019). Algorithmic Personalization as a Mode of Individuation. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 17–37.

Mathias, Decuypere The Topologies of Data Practices: A Methodological Introduction Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., & Lammes, S. (2018). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods. Routledge.

Lury, C., Parisi, L., & Terranova, T. (2012). Introduction: The Becoming Topological of Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 3–35.

Lury, C., Tironi, M., & Bernasconi, R. (2020). The Social Life of Methods as Epistemic Objects: Interview with Celia Lury. Diseña, 16, 32–55.

Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (2012). Introduction: A perpetual inventory. Inventive Methods (pp. 15–38). Routledge.

Martin, L., & Secor, A. J. (2014). Towards a post-mathematical topology. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 420–438.

[29] Piattoeva, N., & Saari, A. (2020). Rubbing against data infrastructure(s): methodological explorations on working with(in) the impossibility of exteriority. Journal of Education Policy, 00(00), 1–21.

Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society, 20(1), 293–310.

Prince, R. (2017). Local or global policy? Thinking about policy mobility with assemblage and topology. Area, 49(3), 335–341.

Ratner, H. (2019). Topologies of Organization: Space in Continuous Deformation. Organization Studies, 1–18.

Ratner, H., & Gad, C. (2019). Data warehousing organization: Infrastructural experimentation with educational governance. Organization, 26(4), 537–552.

Ratner, H., & Ruppert, E. (2019). Producing and projecting data: Aesthetic practices of government data portals. Big Data & Society, 6(2), 1–16.

Ruppert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling Social Science Methods: The Challenge of Digital Devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 22–46.

Suchman, L. (2012). Configuration. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social (pp. 48–60). Taylor and Francis.

Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2015). Becoming-topologies of education: deformations, networks and the database effect. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 732–748.

Thompson, G., & Sellar, S. (2018). Datafication, testing events and the outside of thought. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 139–151.

van de Oudeweetering, K., & Decuypere, M. (2019). Understanding openness through (in)visible platform boundaries: a topological study on MOOCs as multiplexes of spaces and times. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1).

van de Oudeweetering, K., & Decuypere, M. (2020). In between hyperboles: forms and formations in Open Education. Learning, Media and Technology, Advance online publication, 1–18.

Williamson, B. (2017). Learning in the “platform society”: Disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education, 98(1), 59–82.