MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396695173 · doi:10.5430/jct.v13n2p83

Development and Application of Elementary School AI Education Program Using the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme (PYP) Approach

2024· article· en· W4396695173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bom-sol Kim, Eun-jung Go, Woo-jong Moon, B. Joon Kim, Jong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Research and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPrimary (astronomy)Medical educationPrimary educationPsychologyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to enhance elementary school students' foundational understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) and to foster their Computational thinking. This goal was realized through the creation of an AI education program integrating the ADDIE model and the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme (PYP) teaching methodology. Before developing the educational program, we conducted a preliminary needs analysis with 60 fifth-grade students from IB World School P Elementary and 36 staff members, aligning with the stages of the ADDIE model. Drawing from the outcomes of this preliminary needs analysis, we opted for the transdisciplinary theme 'How the world works,' as it resonated most aptly with AI-related content, as determined by participating educators. Real-life AI-based concepts were seamlessly woven into the educational material. Throughout the program, students actively engaged in exploratory activities centered on the chosen transdisciplinary theme and central concept. Collaborating on team projects, they collectively tackled problem-solving processes, completing activities and assignments aimed at fostering self-directed learning. To assess the effectiveness of the developed educational program on students' computational thinking, pre- and post-tests were administered. Validation results underscored that the program made a significant contribution to the enhancement of Computational Thinking among the participating students.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducational Research and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207