Lanjing Liu
ABSTRACT
Children face increasing privacy risks and the need to navigate complex choices, while privacy education is not sufficient due to limited education scope and family involvement. We advocate for informal learning spaces (ILS) as a pioneering channel for family-based privacy education, given their established role in holistic technology and digital literacy education, which specifically targets family groups. In this paper, we conducted an interview study with five families to understand revealing current approaches to privacy education and engagement with ILS for family-based learning. Our findings highlight ILS’s trans-formative potential in family privacy education, considering existing practices and challenges. We discuss the reason for family-based privacy education in ILS and identify potential design opportunities. Additionally, we outline our future work, which involves expanding participant involvement and conducting co-design activities with family groups to create design prototypes.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- Devon Adams, Alseny Bah, Catherine Barwulor, Nureli Musabay, Kadeem Pitkin, and Elissa M. Redmiles. 2018. Ethics emerging: the story of privacy and security perceptions in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security (Baltimore, MD, USA) (SOUPS ’18). USENIX Association, USA, 443–458.Google Scholar
- David Barnard-Wills and Debi Ashenden. 2015. Playing with Privacy: Games for Education and Communication in the Politics of Online Privacy. Political Studies 63, 1 (March 2015), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12049 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malinda J. Colwell, Kimberly Corson, Anuradha Sastry, and Holly Wright. 2016. Secret keepers: children’s theory of mind and their conception of secrecy. Early Child Development and Care 186, 3 (March 2016), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1031657 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1031657.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Dempsey, Gavin Sim, Brendan Cassidy, and Vinh-Thong Ta. 2022. Children designing privacy warnings: Informing a set of design guidelines. Int. J. Child-Comp. Interact. 31, C (mar 2022), 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100446Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stefania Druga, Fee Lia Christoph, and Amy J Ko. 2022. Family as a Third Space for AI Literacies: How do children and parents learn about AI together?. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (, New Orleans, LA, USA,) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 225, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502031Google ScholarDigital Library
- Serge Egelman, Julia Bernd, Gerald Friedland, and Dan Garcia. 2016. The Teaching Privacy Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education(SIGCSE ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844619Google ScholarDigital Library
- John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. OCLC: 43384923.Google Scholar
- Helen L. Gallagher and Christopher D. Frith. 2003. Functional imaging of ’theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 2 (Feb. 2003), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00025-6Google ScholarCross Ref
- Giorgia Gibellini, Valeria Fabretti, and Gianluca Schiavo. 2023. AI Education from the Educator’s Perspective: Best Practices for an Inclusive AI Curriculum for Middle School. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (, Hamburg, Germany, ) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 27, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585747Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Heath, Dirk Vom Lehn, and Jonathan Osborne. 2005. Interaction and interactives: collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science 14, 1 (Jan. 2005), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505047343 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexis Hiniker, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Not at the Dinner Table: Parents’ and Children’s Perspectives on Family Technology Rules. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1376–1389. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819940Google ScholarDigital Library
- Priya Kumar, Jessica Vitak, Marshini Chetty, Tamara L. Clegg, Jonathan Yang, Brenna McNally, and Elizabeth Bonsignore. 2018. Co-designing online privacy-related games and stories with children. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Trondheim, Norway) (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202735Google ScholarDigital Library
- Priya C Kumar and Virginia L Byrne. 2022. The 5Ds of privacy literacy: a framework for privacy education. Information and Learning Sciences 123, 7/8 (2022), 445–461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Josephine Lau, Benjamin Zimmerman, and Florian Schaub. 2018. Alexa, Are You Listening? Privacy Perceptions, Concerns and Privacy-seeking Behaviors with Smart Speakers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 102:1–102:31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274371Google ScholarDigital Library
- Merike Lipu and Andra Siibak. 2019. ‘Take it down!’: Estonian parents’ and pre-teens’ opinions and experiences with sharenting. Media International Australia 170, 1 (Feb. 2019), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19828366 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lanjing Liu, Chao Zhang, and Zhicong Lu. 2024. Wrist-Bound Guanxi, Jiazu, and Kuolie: Unpacking Chinese Adolescent Smartwatch-Mediated Socialization. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642044 arxiv:2403.03306 [cs]Google ScholarDigital Library
- Duri Long, Takeria Blunt, and Brian Magerko. 2021. Co-Designing AI Literacy Exhibits for Informal Learning Spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 293:1–293:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476034Google ScholarDigital Library
- Duri Long, Anthony Teachey, and Brian Magerko. 2022. Family Learning Talk in AI Literacy Learning Activities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502091Google ScholarDigital Library
- Delfina Malandrino, Andrea Petta, Vittorio Scarano, Luigi Serra, Raffaele Spinelli, and Balachander Krishnamurthy. 2013. Privacy Awareness about Information Leakage: Who Knows What about Me?. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Workshop on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (Berlin, Germany) (WPES ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517840.2517868Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sana Maqsood and Sonia Chiasson. 2021. Design, development, and evaluation of a cybersecurity, privacy, and digital literacy game for tweens. ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) 24, 4 (2021), 1–37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emily McReynolds, Sarah Hubbard, Timothy Lau, Aditya Saraf, Maya Cakmak, and Franziska Roesner. 2017. Toys that Listen: A Study of Parents, Children, and Internet-Connected Toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 5197–5207. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025735Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ann Mintz. 2005. Science, society and science centres. Historia, Ciencias, Saude–Manguinhos 12, Suppl (2005), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702005000400013Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joan Mora-Guiard and Narcis Pares. 2014. "Child as the measure of all things": the body as a referent in designing a museum exhibit to understand the nanoscale. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children(IDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2593985Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Müller. 2013. Museums designing for the future: some perspectives confronting German technical and industrial museums in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19, 5 (July 2013), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.651736 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.651736.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review 79, 1 (Feb. 2004), 119. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10Google Scholar
- Maggie Oates, Yama Ahmadullah, Abigail Marsh, Chelse Swoopes, Shikun Zhang, Rebecca Balebako, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2018. Turtles, Locks, and Bathrooms: Understanding Mental Models of Privacy Through Illustration. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2018, 4 (Oct. 2018), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2018-0029Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farzana Quayyum. 2020. Cyber security education for children through gamification: research plan and perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts(IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398030Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kate Raynes-Goldie and Matthew Allen. 2014. Gaming Privacy: a Canadian case study of a children’s co-created privacy literacy game. Surveillance & Society 12, 3 (June 2014), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i3.4958Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marie-Monique Schaper, Maria Santos, Laura Malinverni, and Narcis Pares. 2017. Towards the Design of a Virtual Heritage Experience based on the World-as-Support Interaction Paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2034–2041. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053089Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips (Eds.). 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225557/Google Scholar
- Kaiwen Sun, Carlo Sugatan, Tanisha Afnan, Hayley Simon, Susan A. Gelman, Jenny Radesky, and Florian Schaub. 2021. “They See You’re a Girl if You Pick a Pink Robot with a Skirt”: A Qualitative Study of How Children Conceptualize Data Processing and Digital Privacy Risks. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445333Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. M. Wellman, D. Cross, and J. Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72, 3 (2001), 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olivia Williams, Yee-Yin Choong, and Kerrianne Buchanan. 2023. Youth understandings of online privacy and security: A dyadic study of children and their parents. In Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023). USENIX Association, Anaheim, CA, 399–416. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2023/presentation/williamsGoogle Scholar
- Pamela J. Wisniewski, Bart P. Knijnenburg, and Heather Richter Lipford. 2017. Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users to inform privacy education and nudging. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98 (Feb. 2017), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.006Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin Xie, Erik Harpstead, Betsy DiSalvo, Petr Slovak, Ahmed Kharrufa, Michael J. Lee, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Amy Ogan, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2019. Learning, Education, and HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3311761Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yaxing Yao, Justin Reed Basdeo, Smirity Kaushik, and Yang Wang. 2019. Defending My Castle: A Co-Design Study of Privacy Mechanisms for Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300428Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christine Ee Ling Yap and Jung-Joo Lee. 2020. ’Phone apps know a lot about you!’: educating early adolescents about informational privacy through a phygital interactive book. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference(IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394420Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaowen Yuan, Hongni Ye, Ziheng Tang, Xiangrong Zhu, Yaxing Yao, and Xin Tong. 2024. RedCapes: the Design and Evaluation of a Game Towards Improving Autistic Children’s Privacy Awareness. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Chinese CHI (, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, ) (CHCHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/3629606.3629618Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Yusri, Adel Abusitta, and Esma Aïmeur. 2020. A Stable Personalised Partner Selection for Collaborative Privacy Education. In Adjunct Publication of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization(UMAP ’20 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386392.3397597Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Yusri, Adel Abusitta, and Esma Aïmeur. 2021. Teens-Online: a Game Theory-Based Collaborative Platform for Privacy Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 31, 4 (Dec. 2021), 726–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00224-0Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leah Zhang-Kennedy and Sonia Chiasson. 2016. Teaching with an Interactive E-book to Improve Children’s Online Privacy Knowledge. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2935984Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Christine Mekhail, Yomna Abdelaziz, and Sonia Chiasson. 2016. From Nosy Little Brothers to Stranger-Danger: Children and Parents’ Perception of Mobile Threats. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930716Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jun Zhao, Blanche Duron, and Ge Wang. 2022. KOALA Hero: Inform Children of Privacy Risks of Mobile Apps. In Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3535278Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Integrating Family Privacy Education and Informal Learning Spaces: Characteristics, Challenges and Design Opportunities
Recommendations
Challenges and Opportunities for International Students in Graduate Education
International students pursuing graduate education in U.S. institutes have been rapidly increasing in recent years. Students from all over the world remarkably contribute to the advancement of U.S. economy and technology. This article addresses the ...
Integrating & Implementing K-12 Computing Pathways across Six School Districts-Challenges & Opportunities
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2This SIGCSE poster presents a landscape study of six school districts across six different states in terms of their individual teachers' and administrators' capacity to integrate and implement computational thinking (CT) into their own schools and ...
Comments