Implementing Organization
1
Organization Type
Public Library (Local Government)
Location
Yorba Linda, Southern California, USA (suburban)
Primary Facilitator Role
Graduate students majoring in Computer Science; technical volunteers/facilitators
Learning Context
2
Setting Type
- Informal learning
- Afterschool center
- In-school (K–12)
- Private program
Session Format
One-time workshop
Duration
90 minutes
Group Size
Not assigned
Devices
Shared devices
Constraints
- No individual logins allowed
- No personal data collection
- Public space, mixed-age attendance
- Time-limited setup and teardown
Learner Profile (Non-identifiable)
3
Age Range
Approx. ages 5–11
Prior AI Exposure (Assumed)
No prior experience with generative AI tools assumed
Prior Programming Background (Assumed)
None 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
- Not an assessment-driven activity
AI Tool Description
5
Tool Type
Generative AI storytelling application
AI Role
- Co-creator
- Tutor
- Evaluator
- Automation tool
User Interaction Model
- Students pick their favorite Bluey characters (up to 3)
- Volunteers take a picture of the characters
- 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
- Pre-filtered prompts
- No free-form open chat
- Content moderation enabled
Activity Design
6
Activity Flow
- Volunteers 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, variation suggestions
Scaffolding Strategies
- Prompt cards with examples
- Sentence starters
- Volunteer-led reflection questions
Observed Challenges (Facilitator-Reported)
7
- Background noise made voice input unclear
- Some prompts were vague or contradictory
- Time pressure limited deeper iteration
- Younger students needed help typing prompts
- The inputs looked fine, but the app generated a twisted image
Design Adaptations Made
8
- Introduced “AI is a helper, not the author” framing
- Added pause points for human editing
- Used printed prompts instead of free typing
- Switched from voice input to text input to avoid background noise interference
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; debated story coherence; some questioned AI “choices”
Facilitator Reflection
“The AI helped lower the barrier to starting a story, but the best moments came when students disagreed with it.”
Ethical & Privacy Considerations
10
- No personal data collected
- No student names recorded
- No recordings or images stored
- Parents present in public space
- Tool complied with library usage policies
Evidence Type
11
- Practitioner observation
- Activity documentation
- Pre/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
Public Library
AI Function
Generative Text/Image/Voice
Pedagogy
Non-collaborative Learning
Risk Level
Low
Data Sensitivity
None