Of 89 coded supervised learning activities, 69 confine learners to the User role, 17 reach Creator, and 8 reach Machine¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A review classifying K-12 ML activities by learner role with respect to the algorithm found the User role dominates supervised learning activities, leaving the trust-calibrating potential of process control largely untapped. → Pierre Haritz 2026

Evidence¶

Pierre Haritz 2026¶

Pierre Haritz, Hendrik Krone, and Thomas Liebig. (2026). Addressing Trust in AI Systems through Education: A Didactic Perspective. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02453 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.02453

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

Systematic review of 126 activities classifying each by the learner role it assigns (User, Machine, Creator). The printed distribution is 69 User, 17 Creator, and 8 Machine of 89 coded supervised learning activities; no effect sizes are printed.

"of 89 coded supervised learning activities, 69 confine the learner to the User role, while only 17 reach Creator and 8 reach Machine."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Across 133 K-12 ML activities, a technical and a societal perspective on the same algorithm co-occur in roughly 3% of cases — related
• In a review of 126 K-12 ML activities, supervised learning activities cluster overwhelmingly in the lowest algorithmic-abstraction levels — related
• Algorithmic and technical-mechanism concepts are marginal in students' AI networks: machine learning was produced by a single participant across 436 respondents — related