Going Over the Wall: Supporting Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy Using Narrative Design Fiction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly embedded in every aspect of our lives and educators are beginning to consider how to teach with and about it. Most AI curricula distinctly focus on developing digital or physical technical skills such as coding, robotics, and programming, while only sometimes critically considering the social and ethical dimensions of AI. This may lead to a future disparity between critical thinking and technical competency in AI literacy programming. This qualitative case study research focuses on how a week-long virtual camp used narrative design fiction in graphic novel format as a framework for camp activities and discussions for students in grades 6-8, to facilitate conversations related to the social and ethical implications of AI use. Results suggest that participants gained deeper and more complex opinions on AI and human-technology relationships via critical conversations facilitated through the narrative design fiction. Recommendations for future work on speculative futures, reflection, and narrative design fiction are presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it