ASU Scholarship Showcase
This growing collection consists of scholarly works authored by ASU-affiliated faculty, staff, and community members, and it contains many open access articles. ASU-affiliated authors are encouraged to Share Your Work in KEEP.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Education -- Political aspects
- All Subjects: Google glass
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
![162284-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-12/162284-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=pKnzweM7rLu6QvTnblMS_QS.u4eKOq.o&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240510/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240510T002412Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=540a20336e87dba0b3379c72826130bcf93f1fa9eba821b1dbdbdc298c0269cd&itok=4TmbvqJ-)
Human team members show a remarkable ability to infer the state of their partners and anticipate their needs and actions. Prior research demonstrates that an artificial system can make some predictions accurately concerning artificial agents. This study investigated whether an artificial system could generate a robust Theory of Mind of human teammates. An urban search and rescue (USAR) task environment was developed to elicit human teamwork and evaluate inference and prediction about team members by software agents and humans. The task varied team members’ roles and skills, types of task synchronization and interdependence, task risk and reward, completeness of mission planning, and information asymmetry. The task was implemented in MinecraftTM and applied in a study of 64 teams, each with three remotely distributed members. An evaluation of six Artificial Social Intelligences (ASI) and several human observers addressed the accuracy with which each predicted team performance, inferred experimentally manipulated knowledge of team members, and predicted member actions. All agents performed above chance; humans slightly outperformed ASI agents on some tasks and significantly outperformed ASI agents on others; no one ASI agent reliably outperformed the others; and the accuracy of ASI agents and human observers improved rapidly though modestly during the brief trials.
![Does School Participatory Budgeting Increase Students’ Political Efficacy? Bandura’s “Sources,” Civic Pedagogy, and Education for Democracy](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-07/screen-shot-2021-07-20-at-6.10.57-pm.png?versionId=01Z5qqwcTKc.eJFlSZubPdwl2jx84EzA&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240510/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240510T002406Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=2d39213a7e9aae0150b0c5f55d8b39f27b95be6c8c163dc8f9e1b05ab9acd8c7&itok=Q5ViBtvN)
Does school participatory budgeting (SPB) increase students’ political efficacy? SPB, which is implemented in thousands of schools around the world, is a democratic process of deliberation and decision-making in which students determine how to spend a portion of the school’s budget. We examined the impact of SPB on political efficacy in one middle school in Arizona. Our participants’ (n = 28) responses on survey items designed to measure self-perceived growth in political efficacy indicated a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.46), suggesting that SPB is an effective approach to civic pedagogy, with promising prospects for developing students’ political efficacy.
![162019-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-11/162019-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=ggwmCoJwMmPn_etoBvZ0I7CwloJLYXDG&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240510/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240510T002406Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=d11302ccfccedf48e55ea279e1ab5b9dc0444d42ae02cc4ccfd0fa44eca05f50&itok=lUNu23V-)
Cities in the Global South face rapid urbanization challenges and often suffer an acute lack of infrastructure and governance capacities. Smart Cities Mission, in India, launched in 2015, aims to offer a novel approach for urban renewal of 100 cities following an area‐based development approach, where the use of ICT and digital technologies is particularly emphasized. This article presents a critical review of the design and implementation framework of this new urban renewal program across selected case‐study cities. The article examines the claims of the so‐called “smart cities” against actual urban transformation on‐ground and evaluates how “inclusive” and “sustainable” these developments are. We quantify the scale and coverage of the smart city urban renewal projects in the cities to highlight who the program includes and excludes. The article also presents a statistical analysis of the sectoral focus and budgetary allocations of the projects under the Smart Cities Mission to find an inherent bias in these smart city initiatives in terms of which types of development they promote and the ones it ignores. The findings indicate that a predominant emphasis on digital urban renewal of selected precincts and enclaves, branded as “smart cities,” leads to deepening social polarization and gentrification. The article offers crucial urban planning lessons for designing ICT‐driven urban renewal projects, while addressing critical questions around inclusion and sustainability in smart city ventures.`
![127818-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/127818-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=qLGCQ1VFCpbdSwaAFkgkSfSweOno43nm&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240510/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240510T002407Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=0e9de901eb5c9d465cee2e96f2c63c7c745f6230b23527b65384d0aa943ea9b3&itok=XSz86-di)
This chapter is not a guide to embodied thinking, but rather a critical call to action. It highlights the deep history of embodied practice within the fields of dance and somatics, and outlines the value of embodied thinking within human-computer interaction (HCI) design and, more specifically, wearable technology (WT) design. What this chapter does not do is provide a guide or framework for embodied practice. As a practitioner and scholar grounded in the fields of dance and somatics, I argue that a guide to embodiment cannot be written in a book. To fully understand embodied thinking, one must act, move, and do. Terms such as embodiment and embodied thinking are often discussed and analyzed in writing; but if the purpose is to learn how to engage in embodied thinking, then the answers will not come from a text. The answers come from movement-based exploration, active trial-and-error, and improvisation practices crafted to cultivate physical attunement to one's own body. To this end, my "call to action" is for the reader to move beyond a text-based understanding of embodiment to active engagement in embodied methodologies. Only then, I argue, can one understand how to apply embodied thinking to a design process.