skip to main content
10.1145/3372782.3406252acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

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

Published:07 August 2020Publication History

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.

References

  1. Ruth E. Anderson, Michael D. Ernst, Robert Ordóñez, Paul Pham, and Ben Tribelhorn. 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/10.1145/2676723.2677309Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mad Price Ball. [n. d.]. Open Humans. https://www.openhumans.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin Cory Bart, Dennis Kafura, Cliford A Shafer, and Eli Tilevich. 2018. Reconciling 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Austin Cory Bart, Ryan Whitcomb, Dennis Kafura, Cliford A Shafer, and Eli Tilevich. 2017. Computing with corgis: Diverse, real-world datasets for introductory computing. ACM Inroads 8, 2 (2017), 66--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Rahul Bhargava and Catherine D'Ignazio. [n. d.]. Designing tools and activities for data literacy learners.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nick Bostrom. [n. d.]. The Vulnerable World Hypothesis. ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Anna Brown, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Andrew Tobin, 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ed Burns. 2018. Search Enterprise AI Current state of AI is poorly understood by the public. https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/opinion/ Current-state-of-AI-is-poorly-understood-by-the-public.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Howard Chen. 2018. MSandE 238 Blog Public perception of artifcial intelligence. https://mse238blog.stanford.edu/2018/07/howachen/ public-perception-of-artifcial-intelligence/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. National Research Council et al. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Imad Dabbura. 2018. Predicting Loan Repayment. https://towardsdatascience. com/predicting-loan-repayment-5df4e0023e92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Erica Deahl. 2014. Better the data you know: Developing youth data literacy in schools and informal learning environments. Available at SSRN 2445621 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. John Dewey. 1986. Experience and education. In The Educational Forum, Vol. 50. Taylor & Francis, 241--252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Catherine D'Ignazio and Rahul Bhargava. 2016. Data Basic: Design principles, tools and activities for data literacy learners. The Journal of Community Informatics 12, 3 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Catherine D'Ignazio and Rahul Bhargava. [n. d.]. Approaches to building big data literacy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2016. Feminist data visualization. In Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (VIS4DH), Baltimore. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Norma González, Luis C Moll, and Cathy Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Dan Goodley. 2000. Self-advocacy in the lives of people with learning diffculties: The politics of resilience. Open University Press Buckingham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dan Goodley. 2005. Empowerment, self-advocacy and resilience. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 9, 4 (2005), 333--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tom Hitron, Yoav Orlev, Iddo Wald, Ariel Shamir, Hadas Erel, and Oren Zuckerman. 2019. Can Children Understand Machine Learning Concepts?: The Efect of Uncovering Black Boxes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A design probe to understand how data scientists understand machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 579.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. D. Kidd and C. Breazeal. 2004. Efect 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.2004.1389967Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Konstantina Kourou, Themis P Exarchos, Konstantinos P Exarchos, Michalis V Karamouzis, and Dimitrios I Fotiadis. 2015. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Computational and structural biotechnology journal 13 (2015), 8--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sean Kross and Philip J Guo. 2019. Practitioners Teaching Data Science in Industry and Academia: Expectations, Workflows, and Challenges. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Camillia Matuk, Anna Amato, Kayla DesPortes, Marian Tes, Veena Vasudevan, Susan Yoon, Jooeun Shim, Amanda Cottone, Kate Miller, Blanca Himes, et al. [n. d.]. Data Literacy for Social Justice. ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Luis C Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Nef, and Norma Gonzalez. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice 31, 2 (1992), 132--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Engineering National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, et al. 2018. How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Greg L Nelson, Benjamin Xie, and Amy J Ko. 2017. Comprehension frst: evaluating 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Andrew Ng. 2011. Machine Learning Coursera Course. https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Cathy O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Seymour Papert. 1999. Papert on piaget. Time magazine, pág 105 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Evan M Peck, Sofa 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. 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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Milo Schield. 2004. Information literacy, statistical literacy and data literacy. In Iassist Quarterly (IQ). Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jenny Slater. 2012. Self-advocacy and socially just pedagogy. Disability Studies Quarterly 32, 1 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Dave Touretzky. 2019. AI4K12. https://github.com/touretzkyds/ai4k12/wiki.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. James Vincent. 2017. The Verge Robots and AI are going to make social inequality even worse, says new report. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15963710/robots-ai-inequality-social-mobility-study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Thomas Way, Mary-Angela Papalaskari, Lillian Cassel, Paula Matuszek, Carol Weiss, and Yamini Praveena Tella. 2017. Machine learning modules for all disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 84--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Yin-Ling IWong, Trevor R Hadley, Dennis P Culhane, Stephen R Poulin, Morris R Davis, Brian A Cirksey, and James L Brown. 2006. Predicting staying in or leaving permanent supportive housing that serves homeless people with serious mental illness. Departmental Papers (SPP) (2006), 111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Benjamin Xie, Greg L Nelson, and Amy J Ko. 2018. An explicit strategy to scafold novice program tracing. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 344--349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Moira L Zellner, Leilah B Lyons, Charles J Hoch, Jennifer Weizeorick, Carl Kunda, and Daniel C Milz. 2012. Modeling, Learning, and Planning Together: An Application of Participatory Agent-based Modeling to Environmental Planning. Journal of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association 24, 1 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Baobao Zhang and Allan Dafoe. 2019. Artifcial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends. Available at SSRN 3312874 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Abigail Zimmermann-Niefeld, 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
              August 2020
              364 pages
              ISBN:9781450370929
              DOI:10.1145/3372782

              Copyright © 2020 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 7 August 2020

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

              Upcoming Conference

              ICER 2024
              ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
              August 13 - 15, 2024
              Melbourne , VIC , Australia

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader