Connexion
The development of AI and data science has transformed how we gain insights from data. In healthcare, AI tools are being used in the development of new treatments as researchers apply machine learning methods to datasets. However, applying AI in healthcare also brings risks, particularly when systems amplify existing biases in data or design.
In our fourth seminar in our current series on teaching about AI in the arts, humanities, and sciences, Kathy Jessen Eller (The Concord Consortium) introduced the Data Science, AI & You (DSAIY) programme, a high school curriculum that helps students critically evaluate the role of data and AI in healthcare.
Kathy began her seminar by arguing that for many students who use AI tools in their coursework, questions remain about whether they are critically evaluating the tools’ outputs. Students may or may not check an AI-generated answer against primary sources to see if the answer is accurate. There is also growing concern that students’ use of AI tools lets them offload cognitive work rather than engage in deeper thinking. This presents a challenge for educators: how do we help students use AI productively while still supporting them to develop the critical judgement needed to evaluate its outputs?
To tackle this challenge, Kathy and her colleagues have developed the Data Science, AI & You (DSAIY) programme (pronounced ‘Daisy’). DSAIY is a semester-long high school curriculum designed to introduce students to AI by actively engaging them in the machine learning process.
The programme introduces machine learning as the engine behind many AI tools, and introduces the concept of bias through real-world examples. Students use a variety of tools to collect and prepare data, train, test, and evaluate models. It culminates in an ‘AI-a-thon’ where young people work in cross-disciplinary teams alongside data scientists, clinicians, and their own teachers to gain real-world experience.
At the time of the seminar, 11 teachers had delivered the programme to over 800 students across a variety of settings in Rhode Island, USA. Teachers are heavily supported with four days of professional development and ongoing technical assistance throughout implementation. The students that took part had a wide variety of prior experience, including many with no prior background in computer science or statistics. Female participation is notably high; one teacher even remarked that the course saw more girls enrolled than any of his other computer science classes.
In DSAIY, students experience the full machine learning pipeline from data collection and data preparation, to modeling and deployment. Using Python, they train and test simple machine learning models on authentic healthcare data. The aim of the programme is to move students from basic graphing to evaluating complex models, transitioning them from merely plotting data to deeply reasoning about it.
The programme makes use of CODAP (the Common Online Data Analysis Platform), a free, web-based tool developed by The Concord Consortium. CODAP provides an interactive, highly visual environment that lowers the barrier to entry. Students can visualise large datasets and click into individual data points, allowing them to see individual cases within a larger dataset.
The curriculum uses real-world examples from healthcare to introduce concepts of bias and fairness. For example, students learn about pulse oximeters, which estimate blood oxygen levels. However, as these use red and infrared light, readings can vary depending on skin pigmentation, which can lead to inaccurate readings.
Students also collect their own blood oxygen data and plot it using CODAP to observe variability. They consider the accuracy of their measurements and grapple with the ethics of removing outliers from a dataset. This led to students asking critical questions about the makeup of their datasets, the context in which data are collected, and the implications of how data are used in healthcare.
Through the DSAIY programme, Kathy reported that students developed stronger data reasoning skills, gained a deeper awareness of inherent AI biases and risks, and built confidence in public speaking and collaborating with others. Students were also highly engaged and appreciated the focus on real-world healthcare applications and their social implications.
Kathy concluded the seminar by arguing that AI literacy must start with data literacy. When students learn to examine, question, and reason about the data behind AI technologies, they develop the critical thinking skills needed to engage with outputs from real-world systems or everyday technologies like ChatGPT. This can then help them evaluate both the trustworthiness of these tools and their role in important decision-making processes.
You can watch the seminar here:
If you are interested in learning more about Kathy’s work, you can read about the DSAIY programme here or you can read the paper here. You can also learn about CODAP, the data visualisation tool featured in this seminar here.
In our current seminar series, we’re exploring how AI is taught across the curriculum. In our next seminar on Tuesday 14 July at 17:00–18:30 BST, we welcome Dan Verständig (Goethe University Frankfurt) who will explore the connection between Social explainable AI (Social XAI) and Critical Computational Literacy (CCL). To take part in the seminar, click the button below to register. We hope to see you there.
The schedule of our upcoming seminars is available online. You can catch up on past seminars on our blog and on the previous seminars and recordings page.
The post AI literacy begins with data literacy: An example from healthcare appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.
Can AI support creativity? The technology is often framed as threatening creative work either by automating it or by encouraging imitation. But Professor Rebecca Fiebrink’s work in creative machine learning suggests a more useful way to think about this relationship. In our March research seminar, she showed how machine learning can help people work with meaningful data, communicate ideas through examples, and build new kinds of creative projects.
Our current seminar series focuses on teaching applied AI and how educators of subjects beyond computing can make AI and machine learning relevant in their classroom. We were delighted to have Rebecca join us to share insights about the place of machine learning in artistic creation. In her talk, Rebecca explored three connected questions:
One of the seminar’s key ideas was that machine learning can help creators work with forms of data that already matter to them. Rebecca showed that useful data can come from many sources, including microphones, webcams, phones, wearables, sensors, and body movement. She argued that collecting data is often relatively easy, while interpreting and using it is much harder.
This suggests a different starting point for AI education. Instead of beginning with a large dataset prepared by somebody else, learners can start with data that is meaningful in their own context. For instance, data about hand gestures can be linked to different musical rhythms, colours, or game actions.
The seminar also points to a broader shift in how we think about input if we consider creative work. Traditional computing often treats input as something abstract and controlled: a click, a typed command, or a button press. But many creative practices do not work like that. They depend on timing, gesture, rhythm, touch, sound, and movement.
Instead of asking learners to translate everything into words or code first, Fiebrink suggested that educators can use machine learning to allow learners to begin with movement, demonstration, or sound. This is especially relevant in art forms shaped by flow and physical expression, such as music, dance, performance, and interactive media.
Educators can use machine learning to allow learners to begin with movement, demonstration, or sound [instead of with code].
That creates interesting possibilities for teaching. AI does not have to be explored only through screens, prompts, and abstract models. It can also be approached through embodied activities, where learners use gestures, performance, and experimentation to see how an AI system responds. This can make machine learning feel more connected to forms of making that young people already understand.
A second important theme in the seminar was that machine learning allows people to instruct computers through data and examples. Rebecca suggested that this can be especially valuable in creative and embodied work, where what a person wants to express may be difficult to describe in words, maths, or code alone.
One of the strongest examples in the seminar was ‘Wekinator‘, a tool Rebecca has been developing since 2008. She described the tool’s approach as ‘interactive machine learning’: users demonstrate training examples, train a model, test it in real time, then modify their examples and repeat the process.
This is a useful example for the classroom because it shows that training a machine learning model is not a single event, after which the model is trained and finished. Instead it is an iterative process. With Wekinator, learners can try something out, observe the result, and improve the system by changing the examples they provide. That makes ideas such as testing, evaluation, and bias much easier to discuss.
Rebecca also argued that machine learning can help more people become creators. She contrasted large, one-size-fits-all systems that encourage users to imitate existing styles with smaller, more personal systems that can be trained on new data for specific purposes. She captured this contrast clearly, from prompts such as ‘Write music like Bach!’ to examples of personalised tools and interfaces.
This is an important distinction in teaching and learning. If learners only use AI tools to reproduce familiar outputs, then creative work can become narrow and formulaic. But if they can build or train systems around their own interests, intentions, and materials, then machine learning can support experimentation and authorship.
If [learners] can build or train systems around their own interests, intentions, and materials, then machine learning can support experimentation and authorship.
In the final part of the seminar, Rebecca moved from examples to teaching principles. One of the clearest was that machine learning should be taught at a high level with minimal maths, but not as a black box.
Learners do not need advanced mathematics to start exploring machine learning meaningfully, but they do need to understand that:
Rebecca also argued that small data and interactive machine learning can be highly effective. She highlighted quick experimentation, creative usefulness, and the opportunity to build intuition about ideas such as outliers, features, regularisation, and bias in data. Small-scale activities can make technical ideas more visible and manageable for learners.
Rebecca ended on an inspiring note: she argued that learning and teaching creative machine learning is both worth doing and possible. She pointed to a growing set of tools that support experimentation and original creative work without much maths or coding, including Wekinator, Teachable Machine, Micro:bit CreateAI, and more.
The seminar also addressed some important limitations. Rebecca warned that commercial tools are not always good at supporting learning or genuine creative work. She also discussed the difficulty of making generative AI tools safe for children, noting the need for built-in filters, moderation, prompt design, and extensive testing. Therefore, what’s important is to think about what learners are actually learning, and to make space for experimentation without losing sight of safety and critical thinking.
Our research seminars brings together educators and researchers to explore key questions in computing education.
Next in our series on applied AI, Prof. Gianfranco Polizzi (University of Birmingham, UK) will talk about media literacy in the age of AI. Sign up now to join the seminar on 16 June, 17:00 BST:
The post Can AI support creativity? What educators can learn from creative machine learning appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.
For the last five years, once a month, we have hosted an online seminar sharing computing education research. Seminars are organised as usually year-long series with changing themes. In 2025, for example, our theme was ‘Teaching about AI and data science’. In 2024, it was ‘Teaching programming (with or without AI)’.
It is not surprising that for the last few years our focus has been on AI technology, and for 2026 we will continue this. But we will shift from showcasing how computing education research is changing teaching and learning in computing lessons, to showcasing how computing education research in other disciplines, such as art or geography, is starting to include teaching about AI. For example, art lessons may change so that learners find out how professional artists are using AI tools to create arts. Or geography lessons may change so that learners discover how professional geographers are using AI to make predictions about physical or human aspects of geography, such as volcanic activity and global warming.
Our series for 2026 is called ‘Applied AI’. This title recognises that AI technology is applied across contexts, across careers, across disciplines, and this means what we teach across school subjects will change.
The majority of resources and professional development material related to teaching about AI have been developed by the computer science community. For example, we have developed the popular Experience AI resources in collaboration with Google DeepMind. In these resources, the contexts were carefully selected to represent real-world examples across disciplines, and to to enable the teaching of particular technical or social and ethical concepts. This could be described as “a push” of content from computing towards other disciplines. For example, to enable teaching about the ethical issues around plagiarism, an art context is used in the Experience AI resources; to enable teaching about the potential benefits of using AI tools, an ecological geography context is used.
AI applications are always situated within a particular topic. Most current AI applications are data-driven: vast amounts of data are collected and processed to produce models that can then either be used to generate outputs or make predictions. For example, data about artworks can be collected and used to train a model for generating outputs similar to the artworks; this is an application of AI in the art discipline. Or data on wild fires can be collected and used to train a model for making predictions about current or prospective fires; this is an application of AI in the geography discipline.
In reality, the best people to recognise how AI technology is being applied in a discipline and what students in that discipline should be taught about these applications are the people working in the discipline, for example the art and geography teachers. Computer science educators can work to build the technical understanding and the general social and ethical understanding that is common across applications. But the detail of how AI technology is changing a discipline can only truly be understood by the respective community, by the artists and art educators, by the geographers and the geography educators.
At present, though, most educators are grappling with how they can use AI tools for productivity, such as creating lesson plans, or answering emails. Or they are looking at how they can use AI for general teaching and learning, for example for personalisation, say for students with additional needs. The idea that their underpinning discipline is changing is, perhaps, not yet on teachers’ radar. But at universities, such as in undergraduate courses, and in the world of work, education and training are changing. Data science courses are now being offered across faculties, including science, geography, language, and art faculties. These changes will start to filter down to school-based education via curriculum change. While some resources and professional development materials addressing this shift are already becoming available, change is still fragile and patchy.
The aims of our Applied AI research seminar series in 2026 are to start to:
If we can start to agree on what common concepts could be taught in the arts, sciences and humanities, it gives us a better chance to:
To make our 2026 series a success, we need to spread the word about our seminars to groups of educators, researchers, industry and policy makers across the arts, sciences, and humanities.
Please tell those you know in these groups about the seminar series, and share it through your social media and other networks. If you have ideas for subject associations we could connect with or publications where we can write about our series, please let us know.
We have already arranged the following seminars across 2026 and will add more speakers for the remaining monthly slots soon. Seminars always take place online on Tuesdays at 17:00 to 18:30 UK time.
To sign up and take part, click the button below. We’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.
You can view the schedule and details of our upcoming seminars on this page, and catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars page.
PS If you are teaching upper primary school learners in England, you can currently register your interest in our upcoming collaborative study on data science education. You’ll find out more about some of the research we’ve done in this area in this blog post.
The post How can we teach about AI in the arts, humanities and sciences? Research seminar series 2026 appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 