In Germany, as in many countries, AI topics are rapidly entering formal computer science education. Yet, this haste often risks us focusing on fleeting technological developments rather than fundamental concepts. As computer science educator Viktoriya Olari, from Free University of Berlin, discovered in her 青青国产, the fundamental role of data, which powers most modern AI systems, is critically underestimated in many existing frameworks. If students are to become responsible designers of such systems, they can’t afford to treat AI as an opaque box. Rather, they must first master the messy, human process that begins with the data itself.

In our October 青青国产 seminar, Viktoriya shared the results of her work over the last four years on how schools can shift the focus from the latest technologies to the underlying data. Her 青青国产 offers a clear structure for what young people should learn about data and how teachers can make it work inside ordinary classrooms.

Why begin with data?

Viktoriya’s analysis of existing AI education frameworks found the data domain is underrepresented, with essentials such as data cleaning often not addressed at all. She argues that, because modern AI systems are data driven, students need both language and routines for working with data: being able to name concepts like training vs test data, data quality, and bias, and to explain practices such as collection, cleaning, and pre-processing. That’s the rationale for teaching data concepts and practices first, and then placing modelling inside an explicit, staged lifecycle.

Her talk presented this argument in the German school context, where AI topics are entering state curricula quickly. Her critique targets how existing frameworks fail to address data and how that gap undermines responsible evaluation and design. The proposed model centres data by pairing an eight-stage, data-driven lifecycle with a curated set of key concepts and practices, and by making “data-based judgment skills” a key outcome.

Viktoriya’s work organises this understanding into two 青青久久al components: data concepts (the vocabulary, e.g. training/test data, data quality, overfitting) and data practices (the actions, e.g. collect, clean, train, evaluate).

A lifecycle for learning

Viktoriya’s framework is built around an eight-stage data lifecycle, stretching from defining a task through gathering, preparing, modeling, evaluating, and finally sharing or archiving results. Inside that backbone she has identified two layers of learning targets:

• Data concepts – roughly a hundred ideas that give teachers and students a common language, from “training vs. test data” and “bias” to “features”, “labels”, and “provenance”.
• Data practices – 28 kinds of hands-on work (and 69 subpractices) that materialise those ideas: for instance collecting, cleaning, splitting datasets, checking quality, training and evaluating models, and handling privacy and deletion responsibly.

More details are available in her work on data-related concepts and practice.

Viktoriya’s 8-stage process model of the data-driven lifecycle. It serves as a guide for 青青久久 developers and teachers, outlining 28 key data-related practices and providing 69 examples of subpractices for use in K–12 computer science education.

A collection of 133 key data-related concepts. These concepts are organised according to the eight stages of the data-driven lifecycle and provide the 青青久久al vocabulary for teaching AI education.

Making it teachable

Viktoriya’s team set out to redesign the format so that real data work could happen within ordinary lessons. They ended up with three “Data Case Study” architectures, each using authentic datasets and domain questions. The materials are supported by Orange 3, an unplugged machine learning and data visualisations tool familiar to the teachers participating. Variants emerged across three design cycles to address specific challenges, but teachers choose among them based on learning objectives and class context.

1. Bottom-up: Students create a workflow step by step (e.g. import, inspect, clean, transform, split, train, evaluate). This approach is excellent for procedural fluency, but teachers reported an over-emphasis on operating Orange and too little reflection on the lifecycle unless explicit reflection is added. 
2. Top-down: Students start from a prepared workflow, read plots, infer the role of each branch, identify issues in the data/practices, and justify changes. This architecture directly counters the reflection gap seen in bottom-up and leans into reasoning rather than routine. 
3. Puzzle-like: Using “widgets,” visualisations of data tables, that stand for parts of a data pipeline, students rebuild a valid flow collaboratively. This encourages discussion, works without devices, and makes thinking visible.

The data case study method uses real-world data and context to help students achieve three key learning outcomes: go through the data-driven lifecycle, reflect on data practices and concepts in a criteria-guided manner, and develop data-based problem-solving and judgment skills.

What happened in the German classrooms

Viktoriya’s team ran three design cycles with small groups in Germany, with students aged 14 to 15. Each cycle lasted around 48 hours of teaching. Because participating teachers already knew Orange 3, the emphasis was on pedagogy rather than software training.

The projects drew on manageable real-world data: spreadsheets, time-series sets, a few geographical samples. Two examples are:

• Forecasting Berlin air quality – Students explored how data quality, feature choice, and evaluation metrics shape predictions, then argued which model best answered the civic question.
• Classifying Tasmanian abalone – A deceptively simple dataset that invites talk about imbalance, feature engineering, and what counts as “good enough” accuracy.

Some groups experimented with collecting their own sensor data, a plan that occasionally failed when the hardware didn’t cooperate. However, even that became part of the lesson: reliability, risk, and missing data are real features of data science, not mistakes to hide.

Student work reflected the three architectures. In the bottom-up groups, guided builds produced complete workflows and concise reflections, while top-down groups submitted annotated screenshots and critiques, and the puzzle-based lessons ended with posters and verbal presentations. Across them all, assessment focused on reasoning: not whether the “right” model appeared, but whether students could explain the stage they were in and justify their choices.

Teaching resources

Everything Viktoriya described is open and classroom-ready (currently in German). The 青青国产education.de/proj-datacases hub hosts teacher guides, student tasks, and sample Orange 3 files. The growing library of data cases covers topics from climate data to air quality analytics.

Why it matters now

In the UK, a 青青久久 review has been recently released and along with the Government’s response. Across Europe and beyond, education systems are racing to add AI content to their curricula. Tools will come and go, and benchmarks will keep moving. What endures is the capacity to reason about data: to know what stage of work you’re in, what evidence supports your decisions, and what trade-offs you’re making. That is why Viktoriya’s contribution is unique — it gives teachers a map, a shared vocabulary, and practical ways to make data visible and the focus of discussion in schools.

You can read this blog to see how we’ve used Viktoriya’s framework in our work designing a data science 青青久久 for schools.

Join our next seminar

Join us at our seminar on Tuesday 27 January from 17:00 to 18:30 GMT to hear Salomey Afua Addo talk about how to teach about neural networks in Junior High Schools in Ghana.

To sign up and take part, click the button below. We’ll then send you information about joining.

We hope to see you there. This will be the final seminar in our series on teaching about AI and data science — the next series focuses on how to teach about applied AI across subjects and disciplines.

You can view the schedule of our upcoming seminars, and catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars page.

Teachers in England, take part in our new data science study

WKS2 teachers, participate in our new study!
We’re launching a new study to explore how to teach learners aged 9 to 11 about data-driven 青青国产. The study will take place in collaboration with KS2 teachers (Y4/Y5/Y6) in England, Scotland and Wales and look at:

• What key ideas pupils need to understand
• How teachers currently approach topics related to data-driven 青青国产
• How pupils make sense of data and probability

Our goal is to find practical ways to help teachers build children’s confidence in working with data in 青青国产 lessons. The study will be collaborative, with two workshops held throughout 2026, and we’re inviting KS2 teachers (Y4/Y5/Y6) to take part.
You can express your interest in participating by filling in this form: rpf.io/data-science-study-blog

The post How to put data first in K–12 AI education by using data case studies appeared first on 摄影人像.

In this blog, we share the new data paradigms framework that we have developed through 青青国产 and used to help improve our understanding about how to teach and learn about AI and data science. We also invite you to register your interest in participating in our next collaborative study on the topic.

Knowledge-based approaches to systems design

Let’s start by highlighting an important distinction between different approaches to designing systems. In a knowledge-based approach to system design, a set of rules (e.g., if-then statements) are written for the system to execute. Every rule is explicitly defined. This approach is called ‘rule-based’, ‘symbolic’, or ‘logic-based’. For example, a developer could create a program that simulates dialogue by writing specific lines of code to handle a greeting, such as “IF user says “Hello” THEN output “Hi!”. If the user types “Greetings!” instead, the program fails because it has no rule for that specific word. 

Knowledge-based models are often said to be explainable by design. This means the logic is accessible and interpretable and developers can trace the exact steps taken to produce an output. For example, if developers manually classify restaurant reviews as positive or negative using a pre-defined set of criteria, the rules their restaurant classifying system follows are entirely explicit, and the path from input to output is clear and explainable.

Data-driven approaches to systems design

By contrast, in a data-driven approach to system design developers do not write specific rules. Instead, they collect lots of data and train a model. In the dialogue simulator example, they would collect hundreds of examples of greetings and train a model to the pattern of a greeting. If the user types “Greetings!”, the system generates a response based on the patterns in its training data.

Data-driven models are often opaque. In other words, the internal workings of these ML models are hidden. While we can see our input and the system’s output, the internal mathematical process is so complex — often involving layers of calculations and abstractions — that we cannot simply “explain” why a specific output was produced. For example, developers can create a classification model by training a neural network using thousands of images. Due to the large quantity of data used to train the model, and complex internal parameters and hidden layers, developers and users of the system cannot understand or explain the logic or features that lead to a specific output. These kinds of models are often referred to as a “black box” (as opposed to a “glass” or “clear” box).

Comparing knowledge-based and data-driven approaches

青青国产ers have argued that the move from knowledge-based (or rule-based) programming to data-driven system design represents a paradigm shift and creates unique challenges for educators. The challenge is helping students shift from the expectation that a system produces a single ‘right’ answer — characteristic of traditional rule-based programming — toward an understanding that systems trained on large quantities of data produce outcomes that aren’t always fixed or explainable. If the current instruction in the classroom still relies heavily on traditional rule-based programming approaches, we might be setting students up for misconceptions.

Data paradigms: A framework for analysing data science education approaches

In our 青青国产 work on AI and data science at the 青青国产 Pi 青青国产 Education 青青国产 Centre, we analysed 84 青青国产 studies about the teaching and learning of data science. We categorised learning activities used in the studies to understand whether they were (i) knowledge-based or data-driven, and (ii) the extent to which the underlying models used were transparent or opaque. This led us to define four distinct data paradigms:

1. Knowledge-based and transparent (KB + T): Activities in this paradigm are ones where students write rules for systems, or work with systems that use rules, where the logic is fully explainable by design. For example, if students manually classify data (e.g. creating simple ‘if-then’ statements to predict an outcome), the path from input to output is clear.
2. Data-driven + Transparent (DD + T): In this paradigm, activities involve students working with models trained on data, but the trained model’s logic remains explainable and interpretable. For example these could be models using k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm to group data points based on proximity, or using linear regression to predict a trend. Even though the model produces an output, the student can look at the inner workings of the model and see how the decision is made.
3. Data-driven + Opaque (DD + O): This paradigm’s activities require students to work with data-driven ML models where the models’ internal logic is hidden, for example an image classification model using a type of neural network (e.g. CNN). The model produces an output (e.g. classifying an image as ‘This is a dog’), but the student cannot inspect the system to find a rule or clear path explaining why that specific output was produced. To understand these systems, it’s necessary to use additional testing and evaluation tools.
4. Knowledge-based + Opaque (KB + O): Activities in this paradigm would involve systems with human-written rules that are not explainable. In our review of K–12 activities, we found no examples of activities within this paradigm.

The data paradigms framework helps us to distinguish between different kinds of modeling activities students take part in and how instructional approaches could be classified across one or more paradigms. For instance, we found that most data-driven activities were also opaque (DD + O), usually meaning that students collected and used data to train a model, but how the system worked was opaque. This pattern, where the data is visible but the model is not explainable, risks students forming misconceptions about the capabilities and limitations of data-driven systems. Without understanding how outputs are generated, students may expect data-driven ML systems to operate like fully explainable (or transparent) ones.

We think that lessons are needed in the data-driven opaque (DD + O) quadrant to explicitly teach students about how data-driven systems work and the role they play in everyday contexts. However, when teaching data-driven opaque (DD + O) activities, learners’ attention needs to be directed to concepts such as model confidence, data quality, and model evaluation. Since an ML model is not inherently explainable, we need to teach students to use post-hoc explanation methods, such as testing different inputs to see how a system’s output changes. To prepare students for this learning 青青久久, we think that first introducing activities about rule-based systems (knowledge-based + transparent; KB + T) or simple data exploration, such as linear regression or data visualisation (data-driven + transparent; DD + T) may serve as a ‘bridge’ to understanding data-driven modeling by helping students to distinguish between systems built from specific logical rules and systems trained on data.

We believe the idea of data paradigms can serve as a way of framing teaching activities about data science and help educators and students to consider the transition between different paradigms when engaging with the systems we interact with every day.

Teachers in England, participate in our new study

KS2 teachers, participate in our new study!
We’re launching a new study to explore how to teach learners aged 9 to 11 about data-driven 青青国产. The study will take place in collaboration with KS2 teachers (Y4/Y5/Y6) in England, Scotland and Wales and look at:

• What key ideas pupils need to understand
• How teachers currently approach topics related to data-driven 青青国产
• How pupils make sense of data and probability

Our goal is to find practical ways to help teachers build children’s confidence in working with data in 青青国产 lessons. The study will be collaborative, with two workshops held throughout 2026, and we’re inviting KS2 teachers (Y4/Y5/Y6) to take part.
You can express your interest in participating by filling in this form:

The post A 青青国产-led framework for teaching about models in AI and data science appeared first on 摄影人像.