Tension Negotiation and Resolution in the Co-Design of Conversational Agents for Climate Justice Education

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Sunday 8:00 am Four Seasons Ballroom 1
  In Roundtable Session: Equity as a Process: Negotiating Tensions and Power Dynamics Through Discourse in Co-Design Meetings (Table 9)

Abstract

Objectives. We designed and integrated chatbots into a high school environmental science curriculum. The chatbots embodied different perspectives about climate change’s impact on local marine ecosystems (e.g., kelp researcher, civil engineer, college student, fisherman, and social media influencer). These perspectives were co-created with two teachers, three high school students, one scientist, and four environmental educators in participatory design meetings over eight months. We explored the tensions that emerged through involving multiple stakeholders. We asked: What design tensions emerge, how are they resolved, and how do they contribute to the curriculum and chatbot design?

Perspectives. Productive tension that generates new and important design decisions is key to RPPs (Tabak, 2022). Productive tension represents the balance between alterity (i.e., diverse perspectives) and affinity (i.e., commitment to shared goals; Tabak, 2022). Researchers have considered discourse as a contributor to productive tension (Gomoll et al., 2022; Zala-Mezö & Datnow, 2024). Zala-Mezö and Datnow (2024) attend to generative discourse that integrates different expertise, co-constructs ideas, and connects the discussion to shared educational goals.

Methods. We qualitatively analyzed transcripts from the co-design sessions to identify tension, when different perspectives by co-designers and researchers surfaced. We adapted Zala-Mezö and Datnow’s (2024) codebook to examine generative discourse in these instances (Table 1).

Results. Analyses surfaced several design tensions, when practice partners highlighted new perspectives and questioned the current approaches. Researchers and practitioners brought these tensions forward in subsequent meetings and facilitated new design decisions.

Consider the following vignette. In session #3, researchers introduced a question for a 15-minute small-group discussion: “Should the curriculum focus on the ecological or physical effects of climate change?” This topic responded to participants’ wondering from session #2 about how to define “climate change’s impacts”. Our analysis followed one group involving three high school students and a researcher. The students spoke the most (Figure 1). Their conversation was generative: sharing perspectives, connecting to educational experiences, and co-creating ideas. Students discussed the differences between living inland and attending a school by the coast. They reflected on how experiences like field trips served as an ecological entry point to connect to the ocean. Students shared these insights with the whole group, generating discourse from participants from multiple roles (Figure 1). A high school teacher asked, “What do we mean by the coast?”, highlighting the tension to make the curriculum relevant to students located within inland communities.

In session #4, researchers brought back this question to consider in the chatbot design. Generative discourse emerged, as participants considered key decisions around the chatbots’ cultural and living experiences, and how these experiences might connect with students from in-land communities (Figure 2). These discussions directly guided the final chatbot designs.

Significance. Attending to productive tension in the moment (rather than retrospectively) allows us to refocus the discussion and facilitate generative discourse. This practice creates an iteration that balances perspectives (alterity) and shared goals (affinity). Further, moving beyond a focus on equal participation, we trace design decisions to productive tension and highlight the contributions of practice and research partners.

Authors

• Ha Nguyen, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

• Victoria Nguyen, University of California - Irvine

• Sara Ludovise, Orange County Department of Education

• Rossella Santagata, University of California - Irvine