Case ReportPublished qualitative studyDec. 16, 2024
AAB-CASE-2025-RV-028
Young children's understanding of AI
Group interviews (n=18) with 11–12-year-olds on AI as technology and socio-cultural tool; ethics engagement; design recommendations.
This page documents an AI literacy or AI education case for registry purposes. It is descriptive and does not imply AAB endorsement of any specific tool, provider, or intervention.
01
Implementation
University faculty of education
02
Learning context
In-school (K–12)
03
AI role
Tutor
04
Outcome signal
Student voice
Registry Facets
0
Education Level
- 6-8
Subject Area
- AI literacy
- Ethics
Use Case Type
- Qualitative research
Stakeholder Group
- Students
- Researchers
AI Capability Type
- Ethics and society
Implementation Model
- Research-informed guidance
Evidence Type
- Interviews
Outcomes Domain
- Student voice
- Ethics engagement
Implementing Organization
1
Organization Type
University faculty of education
Location
Groningen, Netherlands
Primary Facilitator Role
Researchers conducting group interviews and thematic analysis
Learning Context
2
Setting Type
- In-school (K–12)
- Informal learning
Session Format
Semi-structured group interviews
Duration
Qualitative case study phase as reported
Group Size
18 children in group interview format
Devices
Children discuss everyday AI apps and services they know
Constraints
- Small sample and single national context
- Group interviews may yield peer-normed responses
- Rapid change in apps children reference
- Not linked to a specific curriculum intervention outcome
Learner Profile
3
Age Range
11–12 years
Prior AI Exposure Assumed
High everyday exposure to AI-powered services
Prior Programming Background Assumed
Not required for participation
Educational Intent
4
Primary Learning Goals
- Document how tweens conceptualize AI technically and socially
- Surface ethical curiosity tied to familiar technologies
- Inform personally relevant, critical AI literacy curricula
Secondary Learning Goals
- Shift research gaze from outcomes-only to sense-making and engagement
- Center children’s rights to be heard (UNCRC framing in paper)
What This Was Not
- Not a randomized curriculum trial
- Not large-scale survey
- Not technical skills assessment
AI Tool Description
5
Tool Type
Everyday AI services (voice assistants, recommender systems, etc.) as discussion objects
AI Role
- Tutor
Languages
Dutch educational context
User Interaction Model
- Children narrate experience-based mental models
- Ethical reasoning emerges around known applications
Safeguards
- Age-appropriate facilitation of scary futures (jobs, privacy) without alarmism
- Respect child assent and confidentiality in groups
- Curriculum should connect critique to agency and design, not fear-only
Activity Design
6
Activity Flow
- Design interview protocol on AI understanding and use
- Conduct group interviews
- Apply deductive and inductive coding
- Synthesize themes and derive material design principles
Human Vs AI Responsibilities
- Children interpret technologies; adults design curricula responding to their sense-making
Scaffolding Strategies
- Start from lived experience before formal definitions
- foreground critical literacy alongside technical labels
Observed Challenges
7
Educators Reported
- Gap between global AI literacy materials and evidence on child sense-making
- Need curricula that honor socio-cultural and ethical dimensions early
Design Adaptations
8
Adaptations
- Combined deductive/inductive coding to bridge theory and emergent child voice
Reported Outcomes
9
Engagement
- Children show high interest in ethical implications of familiar AI
Learning Signals
- AI seen as supportive tool culturally; technical views grounded in personal experience
Educators Reflection
Recommends engaging, personally relevant AI materials with critical literacy at the forefront.
Ethical & Privacy Considerations
10
Privacy
- Group confidentiality and sensitive topic facilitation
- Avoid deficit narratives about children’s digital lives
- Inclusive facilitation across varying home access
- Transparent use of any recordings/transcripts
Evidence Type
11
Evidence
- Activity documentation
- Practitioner observation
Relevance to Research
12
Potential Research Use
- Design-based research testing curriculum units built from these themes
- Cross-cultural replication with adolescents
Relevant Research Domains
- Child-computer interaction
- AI literacy curriculum
- Ethics education
Case Status
13
Case Status
- Completed
AAB Classification Tags
14
Age
11–12
Setting
Netherlands
AI Function
Sense-making / ethics
Pedagogy
Interview-informed design
Risk Level
Low
Data Sensitivity
Medium (child discourse)
Registry Metadata
15
Case ID
AAB-CASE-2025-RV-028
Publication Status
Published qualitative study
Tags
case6-8Groningen, NetherlandsResearch-informed guidanceEthics and societyAI literacyEthicsQualitative research