Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Exploring the Usage of Generative AI for Group Project-Based Offline Art Courses in Elementary Schools

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A custom GPT-and-DALL-E interface raised elementary students' satisfaction in group art projects, while query formulation remained the main barrier.

desk verdict The qualitative field study is worth reading, but the headline satisfaction t-test in Section 6.2.2 is not reproducible from the reported means, SDs, and sample sizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16874 v1 pith:EQRT7QP4 submitted 2025-06-20 cs.HC

Zhiqing Wang , Haoxiang Fan , Shiwei Wu , Qiaoyi Chen , Yongqi Liang , Zhenhui Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIproject-basedlearningarteducationelementaryschoolfieldstudyhuman-AIinteractionDALL-EGPT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a purpose-built interface, AskArt, which pairs GPT-4 and DALL-E 3 with child-friendly scaffolding, can help elementary students in group project-based art courses find background information, generate ideas, and get implementation guidance. In a four-phase field study with two teachers and 132 students across eight offline sessions, students who used AskArt reported significantly higher overall satisfaction than students in a no-tool baseline. The same study shows that query formulation, not access, is the main barrier: children struggle to type and to say what they want, and the audio-to-text feature did not fix this. Teachers welcomed the tool's engagement effects but worried that copying AI output could bypass learning. If the result holds, it gives schools a concrete way to bring generative AI into offline elementary art classrooms without giving every child a device.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is AskArt, a web interface that splits the generative AI into two named roles: 'Think Tank' (GPT-4) for text answers and 'Little Painter' (DALL-E 3) for images. Its four scaffolding features are a project-specific self-introduction for each model, audio-to-text input, dynamically suggested follow-up questions, and a select-and-generate mechanism that turns a sentence from the GPT chat into a prompt or context word for DALL-E. These features carry the argument by removing typing burden and teaching query construction; their absence in the traditional Chatbox interface is what Phase 3 compares, and their presence is what the Phase 4 satisfaction difference is attributed to.

What would settle it

A controlled replication in which the baseline groups receive a computer with a conventional search engine or a simple non-AI image tool, with equal teaching-assistant presence and equal novelty, would settle it: if satisfaction is no higher with AskArt, the paper's central claim about AskArt's effect is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that elementary school students can use generative AI productively in offline group art projects when the interaction is scaffolded, and that doing so raises their reported satisfaction with the class. In Phase 4, 43 students in three groups with AskArt rated overall satisfaction at M=6.64 (SD=0.12) versus M=5.46 (SD=0.27) for 54 students in the baseline condition without any computer tool, a difference the authors report as t=3.62, p=0.0005. Students used GPT to seek facts and DALL-E to visualize ideas, often in a sequential pattern, and they appreciated the Suggested Follow-Ups and Select-and-Generate features. The study also finds that children's queries were often disorganized or incomplete, that groups adopted either fixed-operator or everyone-can-ask collaboration strategies, and that both teachers saw increased engagement but worried about misuse and interface fit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Phase 4 comparison isolates AskArt as the cause of higher satisfaction, even though the baseline group had no computer device and no extra teaching assistants, so novelty, any digital tool, or extra adult attention could also explain the difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result is right, a school with one shared computer per group can meaningfully integrate GenAI into an offline elementary art course without one-to-one devices.
  • Scaffolding that makes query articulation easier—suggested follow-ups, selectable text-to-image prompts—is at least as important as the underlying model strength for young users.
  • Teachers who adopt such tools will likely see higher engagement and satisfaction, but they will need rules about submitting AI-generated materials to keep copying from replacing learning.
  • The lack of significant differences in perceived challenge and creativity expression suggests the tool's main effect is on the experience of the class, not on how hard or creative students find the task.
  • Interface designers for children should treat 'audio-to-text' as an input convenience, not a solution to query formulation; the paper's data show speech input produced incomplete queries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My read is that the satisfaction gap in Phase 4 may partly reflect the novelty of any digital tool plus the presence of three teaching assistants, since the baseline had neither computers nor extra adults; a device-matched control would be needed to attribute the gain to AskArt specifically.
  • The observed GPT-then-DALL-E ordering suggests a general design rule for child-facing creative AI: let text answers be directly reused as image prompts, turning a two-tool workflow into a single pipeline.
  • A testable extension would be to add automatic query completion or structured templates for children's spoken questions, since the paper's own finding is that disorganized voice input produced poor results.
  • For schools, the paper implies that GenAI integration should be stage-specific: strongest for information seeking and ideation, and paired with teacher oversight for tasks where output can be copied.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a four-phase field study in Chinese elementary school art classrooms, examining how K-6 students use generative AI (DALL-E and GPT) for group project-based learning. Based on Phase 1-2 observations, the authors designed AskArt, an interface with audio input, suggested follow-ups, project-specific introductions, and a select-and-generate image feature, and evaluated it in Phase 3-4. The main qualitative findings are that GenAI supports information seeking, ideation, and personalized guidance; that query formulation is a key difficulty; that AskArt's features help in specific ways (Findings 5-8); and that teachers see benefits but worry about misuse. The headline quantitative result is in Section 6.2.2: students using AskArt reported significantly higher overall satisfaction than a baseline group without any digital tool (M=6.64 vs. M=5.46, t=3.62, p=0.0005). The paper concludes with design recommendations and implications for educators.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a timely empirical contribution to the CSCW/HCI literature on GenAI in elementary education: it provides one of the first field observations of a GenAI interface tailored for group project-based art classes in a real offline classroom, and its qualitative insights (especially on query formulation, collaboration strategies, and teacher concerns) are plausible and transferable. The four-phase design, use of interaction logs, screen recordings, and teacher interviews are strengths, as is the concrete presentation of AskArt's design features. However, the quantitative evidence for the central satisfaction claim is internally inconsistent as reported, and the satisfaction comparison is confounded. The qualitative contribution is substantial and likely salvageable, but the current abstract and discussion overstate what the quantitative comparison can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.2, Figure 7(b)] The t-test for overall satisfaction (Q2) cannot be reproduced from the values reported in the same paragraph. Using an unpaired Welch t-test with M1=6.64, SD1=0.12, n1=43 and M2=5.46, SD2=0.27, n2=54 gives SE(diff) = sqrt(0.12^2/43 + 0.27^2/54) ≈ 0.041 and t ≈ (6.64-5.46)/0.041 ≈ 28.7, not 3.62. If the values labeled SD are instead standard errors, t ≈ 4.0; if they are group-level SDs with n=6 and n=10, t ≈ 12.0. No natural reading of the reported quantities produces t=3.62, and Figure 7(b) explicitly labels the error bars as standard deviations. Because this t-value is the only quantitative evidence for the paper's headline claim that AskArt significantly raises student satisfaction, the authors must correct the reported statistics, report the exact test with degrees of freedom and an effect size, and verify the numbers against the analysis script or raw data.
  2. [Section 6.1 and Section 7.4] The Phase 4 between-group comparison does not isolate the effect of AskArt. The baseline condition received no computer devices and no alternative tool, while the AskArt condition also included one laptop and a teaching assistant per group. The satisfaction difference could therefore reflect the mere availability of any digital tool, the novelty of using devices during class, or the additional adult attention provided by the three TAs. The limitation is partially acknowledged in Section 7.4, but the abstract and Section 7.1 go further and state that 'GenAI tools were proved effective' with the satisfaction difference as evidence. The authors should either add an active control condition (e.g., a search-engine tool without AskArt) or explicitly reframe the quantitative result as exploratory and remove causal language from the abstract, contributions, and discussion.
  3. [Section 6.2.1] The post-hoc exclusion of 9 out of 108 Questionnaire 4-all responses is not adequately justified. The criterion was a mismatch between a written comment and the rating score, but the criterion is not pre-specified, no inter-rater reliability is reported for applying it, and the resulting valid sample (43 + 54 = 97) does not match the stated 108 - 9 = 99. Since the satisfaction test depends on this filtered sample, the authors should report the test with all 108 responses included, describe exactly who applied the exclusion criterion and how disagreements were resolved, and reconcile the sample-size arithmetic.
  4. [Section 4.2.1 and Section 6.2.1, Figure 7(a)] The coding of queries as 'perceived as correct and helpful,' 'perceived as correct but not helpful,' and 'perceived as incorrect' is central to Finding 5, which claims that AskArt's self-introduction eliminated incorrect usage of GPT and DALL-E. The coding was done by members of the research team who also designed and built AskArt, but no inter-rater reliability statistic is reported and no blinding or independent coding procedure is described. The authors should report Cohen's kappa or a similar agreement measure and describe how the coders' expectations were prevented from influencing the classification. Without this, the disappearance of 'perceived as incorrect' queries in Phases 3-4 cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6.1] The group-count description is confusing: 'A total of eight groups were formed in each class (Class B and Class C), with six groups assigned to the experimental condition and ten groups to the baseline condition' should presumably state that there are 16 groups total, with six experimental and ten baseline groups.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos, including 'PLB' instead of 'PBL' in the Introduction, 'the the process' in RQ3, 'In Proceedings of In Proceedings of' in the ACM Reference Format, and minor grammatical issues such as 'involving in total two experienced teachers.'
  3. [Table 1] The last row of Table 1 is unclear: 'with AskArt 4-all P4-1 to P4-108' repeats the numbering and does not clearly distinguish the 108 all-student questionnaires from the 13 AskArt-specific questionnaires.
  4. [Section 7.2.1] The subsection heading 'Streamlining the input flow to GenAIs based on students' usage patterns' begins with a lowercase letter and should be capitalized for consistency with other headings.
  5. [Section 6.2.2] The text reports 'Questionnaire 4-all' but there is no explicit statement of how many of the 13 AskArt users completed Questionnaire 4 versus how many overlapped with the 43 valid respondents in Questionnaire 4-all; the relationship between these subsamples should be clarified.
  6. [Section 2.1] One citation in the Introduction is a placeholder ('facilitating creativity [?]'); this should be resolved before any final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AskArt evaluation is an empirical between-subjects comparison, not a result forced by its design inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical field-study observations rather than derivations from fitted inputs. AskArt's design goals (DG1-DG3) are explicitly grounded in the Phase 1-2 findings, but the Phase 3/4 evaluation is conducted in new class sessions, and the headline satisfaction result in Section 6.2.2 compares AskArt users to a baseline group that did not use the tool. No parameter in that comparison is fit from the satisfaction data, so the result is not forced by construction. The qualitative findings are similarly reported as observed patterns, not as consequences of the design assumptions. The acknowledged limitations (TA presence, short interaction time, lack of a comprehensive baseline) weaken causal attribution, and the reported t-statistic is internally inconsistent as written, but those are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. The only self-citation with an overlapping author, Zheng et al. [63], is used in Section 7.3.3 to support a design recommendation about tracking task allocation; it is not load-bearing for any central result, and no uniqueness theorem or imported ansatz is invoked. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with the required quotable reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about measurement validity, baseline comparability, and coding objectivity, plus the AskArt artifact itself as a new tool with no independent evaluation. The post-hoc questionnaire filtering is an ad hoc rule that can affect the headline satisfaction result.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase 4 baseline comparability: experimental and baseline groups differ only in AskArt access.
    The design gives AskArt groups a laptop, teaching assistants, and a novel tool, while baseline groups have no devices, so any observed difference could come from these factors rather than the interface.
  • domain assumption Self-report questionnaire ratings measure satisfaction, creativity, collaboration, and challenge as intended.
    Questionnaires are not validated, one item is worded awkwardly ('I fully expressed my creativity in this less'), and no reliability evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-hoc exclusion of mismatched questionnaire responses improves data quality.
    No pre-registered exclusion criterion is given; 9 responses were removed because comments and ratings conflicted, which could bias the satisfaction comparison.
  • domain assumption Qualitative coding by two researchers and teaching assistant observations are unbiased.
    The coders include authors who designed AskArt, and no inter-rater reliability scores or blind coding procedures are reported.
  • domain assumption The participating classes represent typical K-6 offline art classrooms.
    The study involves two teachers and 132 students in one Chinese city, yet the abstract and discussion generalize to K-6 education broadly.
invented entities (1)
  • AskArt
    purpose: An interactive interface combining GPT and DALL-E with audio input, suggested follow-ups, project-related introductions, and select-and-generate prompts.
    AskArt is introduced and evaluated within the same paper by the same team; no external validation or independent deployment is reported, and the source code is not made available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Usage of Generative AI for Group Project-Based Offline Art Courses in Elementary Schools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQRT7QP4

@misc{pith2026250616874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Usage of Generative AI for Group Project-Based Offline Art Courses in Elementary Schools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQRT7QP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16874}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in K-6 project-based art courses presents both opportunities and challenges for enhancing creativity, engagement, and group collaboration. This study introduces a four-phase field study, involving in total two experienced K-6 art teachers and 132 students in eight offline course sessions, to investigate the usage and impact of GenAI. Specifically, based on findings in Phases 1 and 2, we developed AskArt, an interactive interface that combines DALL-E and GPT and is tailored to support elementary school students in their art projects, and deployed it in Phases 3 and 4. Our findings revealed the benefits of GenAI in providing background information, inspirations, and personalized guidance. However, challenges in query formulation for generating expected content were also observed. Moreover, students employed varied collaboration strategies, and teachers noted increased engagement alongside concerns regarding misuse and interface suitability. This study offers insights into the effective integration of GenAI in elementary education, presents AskArt as a practical tool, and provides recommendations for educators and researchers to enhance project-based learning with GenAI technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16874 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our four-phases study as well as its relationship to the design thinking process and three research questions, i.e., RQ1 about elementary students’ usage of GenAIs in their PBL art courses, RQ2 about helpful interaction design with GenAIs for supporting them, and RQ3 about teachers’ thoughts on the impact of GenAIs on their courses. [3]. The effectiveness of PBL has been validated in various practice [20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Chatbox interfaces used in Phases 1 and 2. The left portion of the figure illustrates the question-asking interface and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of our study Findings about elementary students’ usage of GenAIs (F1-4 for RQ1), helpful interaction design (F5-8 for RQ2) explored via AskArt, and teachers’ thoughts on GenAIs’ impact (F9-11 for RQ3). background knowledge and context about their projects. For instance, P2-6 noted that GPT helped understand the “characteristics of the dragons”. Finding 2: Students use GPT for information seeking and DALL-E f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AskArt Interface for Coldstart. The left part is the chat interface with “Think Tank“ (powered by GPT), featuring: Audio-to-Text input (A1), Suggested Follow-Ups (A2), and Project-Related Introduction of “Think Tank“ (A3). The right part is the chat interface with “Lit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AskArt Interface for Auto-Generated DALL-E Prompts and Select and Generate. The blue section is the interface of “Think Tank“, showing the selection of Auto-Generated DALL-E Prompts (A4) followed by a right-click to use Select and Generate (A5). The green section is th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The samples of students’ interactions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for Content Analysis for Students’ Prompts in Phases 2-4 and t-test in Phase 4. (a) shows the responses of students [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aoife A Ahern. 2010. A case study: Problem-based learning for civil engineering students in transportation courses.European Journal of Engineering Education35, 1 (2010), 109–116

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Roudha Saif Al-Khaldi, Doaa Elamin Emam, Yasser M Al Hamidi, Marwan Khraisheh, et al. 2023. Creating Creative Educational Opportunities among Engineering and Arts Students. In2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Rakesh Belwal, Shweta Belwal, Azlinor Binti Sufian, and Amal Al Badi. 2020. Project-based learning (PBL): outcomes of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman.Education+ Training63, 3 (2020), 336–359

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Karen E Bledsoe and Lawrence Flick. 2012. Concept development and meaningful learning among electrical engineering students engaged in a problem-based laboratory experience.Journal of Science Education and Technology21 (2012), 226–245

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Christy K Boscardin, Brian Gin, Polo Black Golde, and Karen E Hauer. 2024. ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence for medical education: potential impact and opportunity.Academic Medicine99, 1 (2024), 22–27

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Penuel, Jason G

    Thomas Breideband, Jeffrey Bush, Chelsea Chandler, Michael Chang, Rachel Dickler, Peter Foltz, Ananya Ganesh, Rachel Lieber, William R. Penuel, Jason G. Reitman, John Weatherley, and Sidney D’Mello. 2023. The Community Builder (CoBi): Helping Students to Develop Better Small Group Collaborative Learning Skills. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conferen...

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bodong Chen, Xinran Zhu, et al. 2023. Integrating generative AI in knowledge building.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence5 (2023), 100184

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Juebei Chen, Anette Kolmos, and Xiangyun Du. 2021. Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: a review of literature.European Journal of Engineering Education46, 1 (2021), 90–115

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Liuqing Chen, Shuhong Xiao, Yunnong Chen, Yaxuan Song, Ruoyu Wu, and Lingyun Sun. 2024. ChatScratch: An AI-Augmented System Toward Autonomous Visual Programming Learning for Children Aged 6-12. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  2. [10]

    Chin-Ling Chiang and Huei Lee. 2016. The effect of project-based learning on learning motivation and problem-solving ability of vocational high school students.International Journal of Information and Education Technology6, 9 (2016), 709–712

    2016

  3. [11]

    Giulia Di Fede, Davide Rocchesso, Steven P Dow, and Salvatore Andolina. 2022. The idea machine: LLM-based expansion, rewriting, combination, and suggestion of ideas. InProceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 623–627

    2022

  4. [12]

    Yogesh K Dwivedi, Laurie Hughes, Elvira Ismagilova, Gert Aarts, Crispin Coombs, Tom Crick, Yanqing Duan, Rohita Dwivedi, John Edwards, Aled Eirug, et al. 2021. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for re...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Pierre Erbacher, Ludovic Denoyer, and Laure Soulier. 2022. Interactive query clarification and refinement via user simulation. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2420–2425

    2022

  6. [14]

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. 2024. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. InForty-first International Conference on Mac...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Vivian L Gadsden. 2008. The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning.Review of research in education32, 1 (2008), 29–61

    2008

  8. [16]

    Susanne Garvis, Danielle Twigg, and Donna Pendergast. 2011. Breaking the negative cycle: The formation of self-efficacy beliefs in the arts. A focus on professional experience in pre-service teacher education.Australasian Journal of Early Childhood36, 2 (2011), 36–41

    2011

  9. [17]

    Arnab Ghosh, Richard Zhang, Puneet K Dokania, Oliver Wang, Alexei A Efros, Philip HS Torr, and Eli Shechtman. 2019. Interactive sketch & fill: Multiclass sketch-to-image translation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 1171–1180

    2019

  10. [18]

    Michail Giannakos, Roger Azevedo, Peter Brusilovsky, Mutlu Cukurova, Yannis Dimitriadis, Davinia Hernandez-Leo, Sanna Järvelä, Manolis Mavrikis, and Bart Rienties. 2024. The promise and challenges of generative AI in education.Behaviour & Information Technology(2024), 1–27

    2024

  11. [19]

    Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and Ray Lc. 2024. When teams embrace AI: human collaboration strategies in generative prompting in a creative design task. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ahmad Dasuki Mohd Hawari and Azlin Iryani Mohd Noor. 2019. Challenges In The Teaching Of Art Common Practices To Enhance Students’ Soft Skills Via Project-Based Learning. In8th UPI-UPSI International Conference 2018 (UPI-UPSI 2018). Atlantis Press, 26–31

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ahmad Dasuki Mohd Hawari and Azlin Iryani Mohd Noor. 2020. Project based learning pedagogical design in STEAM art education.Asian Journal of University Education16, 3 (2020), 102–111

    2020

  14. [22]

    Peiling Jiang, Jude Rayan, Steven P Dow, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Graphologue: Exploring large language model responses with interactive diagrams. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–20

    2023

  15. [23]

    David R Johnson, Linda Renzulli, Jackson Bunch, and Maria Paino. 2013. Everyday observations: Developing a sociological perspective through a portfolio term project.Teaching Sociology41, 3 (2013), 314–321

    2013

  16. [24]

    Kostas Karpouzis, Dimitris Pantazatos, Joanna Taouki, and Kalliopi Meli. 2024. Tailoring Education with GenAI: A New Horizon in Lesson Planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12071(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Zachary Henley, Paul Denny, Michelle Craig, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. Codeaid: Evaluating a classroom deployment of an llm-based programming assistant that balances student and educator needs. InProceedings of the CHI Confe...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Jingoog Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2023. The effect of AI-based inspiration on human design ideation.International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation11, 2 (2023), 81–98

    2023

  19. [27]

    Dimitra Kokotsaki, Victoria Menzies, and Andy Wiggins. 2016. Project-based learning: A review of the literature.Improving schools19, 3 (2016), 267–277

    2016

  20. [28]

    Irene Lee, Safinah Ali, Helen Zhang, Daniella DiPaola, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Developing middle school students’ AI literacy. InProceedings of the 52nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 191–197

    2021

  21. [30]

    Pei-Ying Lin, Kristina Andersen, Ralf Schmidt, Sanne Schoenmakers, Hèrm Hofmeyer, Pieter Pauwels, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2024. Text-to-Image AI as a Catalyst for Semantic Convergence in Creative Collaborations. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Con...

    2024

  22. [31]

    Shih-Yun Lu, Chih-Cheng Lo, and Jia-Yu Syu. 2022. Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp.International Journal of Technology and Design Education32, 5 (2022), 2553–2575

    2022

  23. [32]

    Galyna Lutsenko. 2018. Case study of a problem-based learning course of project management for senior engineering students.European Journal of Engineering Education43, 6 (2018), 895–910

    2018

  24. [33]

    Milan Maros, Marcela Korenkova, Milan Fila, Michal Levicky, and Maria Schoberova. 2023. Project-based learning and its effectiveness: evidence from Slovakia.Interactive Learning Environments31, 7 (2023), 4147–4155

    2023

  25. [34]

    Siva Mathiyazhagan and Karolina La Fors. 2023. Children’s right to participation in AI: Exploring transnational co-creative approaches to foster child-inclusive AI policy and practice.Information Polity28, 1 (2023), 141–153

    2023

  26. [35]

    Michael B McCullough, Michael D Martin, and Mollika A Sajady. 2018. Implementing green walls in schools.Frontiers in psychology9 (2018), 357834

    2018

  27. [36]

    Guien Miao, Iresha Ranaraja, Sarah Grundy, Nick Brown, Marina Belkina, and Tom Goldfinch. 2024. Project-based learning in Australian & New Zealand universities: current practice and challenges.Australasian Journal of Engineering Education(2024), 1–13

    2024

  28. [37]

    I want it to talk like Darth Vader

    Michele Newman, Kaiwen Sun, Ilena B Dalla Gasperina, Grace Y. Shin, Matthew Kyle Pedraja, Ritesh Kanchi, Maia B. Song, Rannie Li, Jin Ha Lee, and Jason Yip. 2024. "I want it to talk like Darth Vader": Helping Children Construct Creative Self-Efficacy with Generative AI. InProc...

    2024

  29. [38]

    Srishti Palani, Zijian Ding, Austin Nguyen, Andrew Chuang, Stephen MacNeil, and Steven P Dow. 2021. CoNotate: Suggesting queries based on notes promotes knowledge discovery. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2021

  30. [39]

    Zachary A Pardos, Matthew Tang, Ioannis Anastasopoulos, Shreya K Sheel, and Ethan Zhang. 2023. Oatutor: An open-source adaptive tutoring system and curated content library for learning sciences research. InProceedings of the 2023 chi conference on human factors in computing sy...

    2023

  31. [40]

    Victoria Pavlou and Aurelio Castro-Varela. 2024. E-Learning Canvases: Navigating the Confluence of Online Arts Education and Sustainable Pedagogies in Teacher Education.Sustainability16, 5 (2024), 1741

    2024

  32. [41]

    Xiaohan Peng, Janin Koch, and Wendy E Mackay. 2024. Designprompt: Using multimodal interaction for design exploration with generative ai. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 804–818

    2024

  33. [42]

    Loginova Polina, Klakova Vlada, Erik Bohemia, Tatiana Semichevskaya, Anna Solovyova, et al. 2022. Student experience of online international design studio participation. InDS 117: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&P...

    2022

  34. [43]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. InInternational conference on machine learning. Pmlr, 8821–8831

    2021

  35. [44]

    Aneeshan Sain, Ayan Kumar Bhunia, Yongxin Yang, Tao Xiang, and Yi-Zhe Song. 2021. Stylemeup: Towards style-agnostic sketch-based image retrieval. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 8504–8513

    2021

  36. [45]

    Mariela Samaniego, Nancy Usca, José Salguero, and William Quevedo. 2024. Creative Thinking in Art and Design Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences14, 2 (2024), 192

    2024

  37. [46]

    Orit Shaer, Angelora Cooper, Osnat Mokryn, Andrew L Kun, and Hagit Ben Shoshan. 2024. AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideation. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2024

  38. [47]

    Mike Sharples. 2023. Towards social generative AI for education: theory, practices and ethics.Learning: Research and Practice9, 2 (2023), 159–167

    2023

  39. [48]

    Kihoon Son, DaEun Choi, Tae Soo Kim, Young-Ho Kim, and Juho Kim. 2024. Genquery: Supporting expressive visual search with generative models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  40. [49]

    Yuqian Sun, Ying Xu, Chenhang Cheng, Yihua Li, Chang Hee Lee, and Ali Asadipour. 2023. Explore the Future Earth with Wander 2.0: AI Chatbot Driven By Knowledge-base Story Generation and Text-to-image Model. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2023

  41. [50]

    Jianqing Tang and Guoxia Zou. 2023. Taking the Software Technology Specialty as an Example to Construct the Professional Knowledge List with Project-Based Learning Method.Open Journal of Social Sciences11, 12 (2023), 27–34

    2023

  42. [51]

    Jakob Tholander and Martin Jonsson. 2023. Design ideation with AI-sketching, thinking and talking with generative machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 1930–1940

    2023

  43. [52]

    U Usmeldi. 2019. The Effect of Project-based Learning and Creativity on the Students’ Competence at Vocational High Schools, 299, 14–17

    2019

  44. [53]

    Maarten Van Mechelen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Marie-Monique Schaper, Mariana Tamashiro, Karl-Emil Bilstrup, Mille Lunding, Marianne Graves Petersen, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2023. Emerging technologies in K–12 education: A future HCI research agenda.ACM Transactions on Computer-...

    2023

  45. [54]

    Maarten Van Mechelen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Marie-Monique Schaper, Mariana Tamashiro, Karl-Emil Bilstrup, Mille Lunding, Marianne Graves Petersen, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2023. Emerging Technologies in K–12 Education: A Future HCI Research Agenda.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Inter...

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    Mathias Peter Verheijden and Mathias Funk. 2023. Collaborative Diffusion: Boosting Designerly Co-Creation with Generative AI. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2023

  47. [56]

    Brett R Wildermoth, David D Rowlands, et al. 2012. Project based learning in embedded systems: A case study. InProceedings of the 2012 AAEE Conference. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Citeseer

    2012

  48. [57]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. Ai chains: Transparent and controllable human-ai interaction by chaining large language model prompts. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–22

    2022

  49. [58]

    Ceisy N Wuntu, Yolanda Singal, and Olga A Rorintulus. 2022. The Implementation of Project Based Learning (PBL) in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill at SMA Yadika Kopandakan II.International Journal of English and Applied Linguistics (IJEAL)2, 3 (2022), 387–398

    2022

  50. [59]

    Xiaotong Xu, Jiayu Yin, Catherine Gu, Jenny Mar, Sydney Zhang, Jane L E, and Steven P Dow. 2024. Jamplate: Exploring LLM-Enhanced Templates for Idea Reflection. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 907–921

    2024

  51. [60]

    Yilin Ye, Qian Zhu, Shishi Xiao, Kang Zhang, and Wei Zeng. 2024. The contemporary art of image search: Iterative user intent expansion via vision-language model.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–31

    2024

  52. [61]

    Michael JQ Zhang and Eunsol Choi. 2023. Clarify when necessary: Resolving ambiguity through interaction with lms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09469 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Xiaohong Zhang and Kenichi Kubota. 2023. Cultivating Students’ Creative Thinking Using Visual Narrative in an Agile Blended Learning Environment. InInternational Conference on Blended Learning. Springer, 163–173. Manuscript submitted to ACM Exploring the Usage of Generative AI...

    2023

  54. [63]

    Chengbo Zheng, Kangyu Yuan, Bingcan Guo, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Zhenhui Peng, Shuai Ma, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. Charting the Future of AI in Project-Based Learning: A Co-Design Exploration with Students. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  55. [64]

    Xiaofei Zhou, Jessica Van Brummelen, and Phoebe Lin. 2020. Designing AI learning experiences for K-12: emerging works, future opportunities and a design framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10228(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Qingxiaoyang Zhu and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2023. Leveraging Large Language Model as Support for Human Problem Solving: An Exploration of Its Appropriation and Impact. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Minneapo...

    2023

  57. [66]

    Yan Zhuge and Julie E Mills. 2009. Teaching finite element modelling at the undergraduate level: a PBL approach. InProceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2009). Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.