Implementing Organization
1
Organization Type
Afterschool center
Location
Diamond Bar, Southern California, USA (suburban)
Primary Facilitator Role
Undergrad. and graduate CS students; technical educators
Learning Context
2
Setting Type
- Informal learning
- Afterschool center
- In-school (K–12)
- Private program
Session Format
Summer camp
Duration
5 days
Group Size
Around 6
Devices
Individual device
Constraints
- No individual logins allowed
- No personal data collection
- Time-limited setup and teardown
- Poor Wi‑Fi signal
Learner Profile (Non-identifiable)
3
Age Range
Approx. ages 5–7
Prior AI Exposure (Assumed)
No prior experience with generative AI tools assumed
Prior Programming Background (Assumed)
No prior programming background assumed
Educational Intent
4
Primary Learning Goals
- Narrative structure (beginning–middle–end)
- Creative expression
Secondary Learning Goals
- Awareness of AI as a tool (not a human)
- Prompt clarity and iteration
- Reflection on human vs AI contributions
What This Was Not
- Not a programming lesson
- Not an AI theory lesson
AI Tool Description
5
Tool Type
Generative AI storytelling application; AI concept slides
Languages
English
AI Role
- Co-creator
- Tutor
- Evaluator
- Automation tool
User Interaction Model
- Students pick their favorite stuffed animals
- Educators take a picture of the animal
- Students provide or pick short prompts using text or voice
- AI generates story segments
- Students provide or pick more prompts using text or voice
Safeguards
- No free-form open chat
- Content moderation enabled
Activity Design
6
Activity Flow
- Educators introduce storytelling concepts
- Group brainstorms story themes
- Students input prompts
- AI generates draft story text
- Final story is read aloud
Human vs AI Responsibilities
- Human: theme selection, editing, discussion
- AI: draft generation, storyline suggestions
Scaffolding Strategies
- Prompt cards with examples
- Sentence starters
- Educator-led reflection questions
Observed Challenges (Educators‑Reported)
7
- One student cannot read or speak English
- Some prompts were vague or contradictory
- Younger students needed help typing prompts
- One student felt not learned, so he was later added to the age 8-10 group.
Design Adaptations Made
8
- Added pause points for human editing
Reported Outcomes (Descriptive, Not Measured)
9
Engagement
- High participation
- Students volunteered ideas actively
- Peer discussion increased after AI output
Learning Signals (Qualitative)
- Students revised AI text intentionally
- Students debated story coherence
- Some students questioned AI “choices”
Educators Reflection
“It was surprising and deeply encouraging to see that a student who does not yet read or speak English was still able to learn core AI concepts and perform very well on the assessment quiz. This experience reinforced how AI learning—when designed with visuals, interaction, and hands-on exploration—can be inclusive and accessible beyond language barriers.”
Ethical & Privacy Considerations
10
- No personal data collected
- No student names recorded
- No recordings or images stored
Evidence Type
11
- Practitioner observation
- Activity documentation
- Post assessment
- Learning analytics
- Student artifacts retained
Relevance to AI Education Research
12
Potential Research Use
- Design-based research
- Informal learning studies
- AI-human collaboration framing
- Early AI literacy conceptualization
Relevant Research Domains
- Learning sciences
- Educational technology
- AI literacy
- Informal STEM education
Case Status
13
- Completed
- Planned expansion
- Scaling across sites
AAB Classification Tags
14
Age
Elementary
Setting
Afterschool center
AI Function
Generative Text/Image/Voice
Pedagogy
Non-collaborative and collaborative Learning
Risk Level
Low
Data Sensitivity
None