Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools does not necessarily provide understanding of how AI-enabled systems are developed and evaluated. This study presents the design and preliminary evaluation of a guided experiential workshop on AI-enabled physical systems for secondary-school students. Students worked with programmable electronics, camera input, image datasets, machine-learning classification, and actuator responses. A one-group pre-test/post-test design examined immediate changes in workshop-specific foundational knowledge and exploratory associations with student-profile indicators. Pre-test data were available for 44 students, with 38 matched pre/post pairs. Mean scores increased from 7.21/16 to 11.55/16 (mean gain = 4.34 points; mean individual normalised gain = 0.50), t(37) = 8.35, p < 0.001, Cohen’s dz = 1.35. This standardised change describes performance on the workshop-aligned test. Post-test scores were higher in both electronics/programming and AI/ML/data domains. Exploratory analyses detected no significant associations between knowledge gains and initial STEM interest or ICT self-concept. Students reported positive perceptions of the workshop. The implementations provide preliminary evidence of practical feasibility with instructional support. These findings support further refinement and evaluation; they do not establish causal effects, broader AI literacy gains, or independent design competence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabrovšek et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: