The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 47 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Using artificial intelligence in craft education: crafting with text-to-image generative models
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and the automation of creative work have received little attention in craft education. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring Finnish pre-service craft teachers’ and teacher educators’ (N = 15) insights into the potential benefits and challenges of AI, particularly text-to-image generative AI. This study implemented a hands-on workshop on creative making with text-to-image generative AI in order to stimulate discourses and capture imaginaries concerning generative AI. The results revealed that making with AI inspired teachers to consider the unique nature of crafts as well as the tensions and tradeoffs of adopting generative AI in craft practices. The teachers identified concerns in data-driven design, including algorithmic bias, copyright violations and black-boxing creativity, as well as in power relationships, hybrid influencing and behaviour engineering. The article concludes with a discussion of the complicated relationships the results uncovered between creative making and generative AI.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This exploratory case study examined Finnish pre-service craft teachers’ and teacher educators’ insights into text-to-image generative AI through a hands-on creative-making workshop. Participants saw opportunities for ideation and externalization, but also raised concerns about design constraints, embodiment, bias, copyright, black-boxing creativity, power, and behaviour engineering.
Key findings
- Participants saw generative AI as potentially useful for ideation and externalization: it could combine ideas, visualize “impossible” ideas, and help children put vague design ideas into words through gradual prompt-crafting.
- Teachers identified tensions and tradeoffs in craft design, including concerns that AI-generated visualizations may not fit material, resource, skill, or ergonomic constraints; that digital design lacks the embodiment and materiality of craft making; and that assessment becomes unclear when pupils use text-to-image AI.
- Concerns about data-driven design included algorithmic bias, copyright violations, black-boxing creativity, power relationships, hybrid influencing, and behaviour engineering. Participants also worried that reliance on existing styles could repeat ideas and reinforce biases.
- The workshop involved N = 15 participants: 5 teacher educators and 10 pre-service teachers. The 3-hour workshop included a 90-minute hands-on exploration in three small groups using Midjourney, followed by group and joint reflections.
Methods
- Design: exploratory case study using a research-creation approach; participants collaboratively created visual images with text-to-image generative AI and reflected on AI and automation in ideation and product design.
- Data/sample: empirical data collected during a workshop in a Finnish university craft teacher education programme in fall 2022; N = 15 participants (5 teacher educators, 10 pre-service teachers), limited to 15 due to limited technical resources and filled in order of registration.
- Analysis: audio from three group discussions and joint reflections was transcribed, pseudonymized, and analyzed using thematic analysis in Atlas.ti; two researchers discussed interpretations, and data examples were provided.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the tensions captured are based on craft teachers’ first encounters with generative AI, so it remains to be seen whether and how these technologies and tensions will be actualized in educational practice.
- Stated in the paper: the study focused exclusively on text-to-image generative AI and did not explore benefits or shortcomings of other AI developments; findings of this exploratory study cannot be generalized.
- Evident from the text: the study is a small, single-workshop case with 15 participants, no demographic details collected, and a specific Finnish craft teacher education context, which further limits transferability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 36 Not checked yet · 6 Own method · 5 No basis given · 4 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results revealed that making with AI inspired teachers to consider the unique nature of crafts as well as the tensions and tradeoffs of adopting generative AI in craft practices.”
plainstates a causen = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The visualization of impossible ideas triggered pre-service teachers’ reflections.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, pre-service teachers reflected on the difference between the digital and the material making of things in terms of feelings of well-being.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many participants emphasized the embodied nature of making that is missing from digital design.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The teachers identified concerns in data-driven design, including algorithmic bias, copyright violations and black-boxing creativity, as well as in power relationships, hybrid influencing and behaviour engineering.”
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The teachers identified concerns in data-driven design, including algorithmic bias, copyright violations and black-boxing creativity, as well as in power relationships, hybrid influencing and behaviour engineering.”
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These concerns were localized in making design decisions and feelings about data-driven futures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the pre-service teachers also recognized the difficulties in locating human agency in an opaque, black-box system, particularly whether and to what extent the output is based on one’s own or somebody else’s choices.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis also showed how collaborative making with generative AI stimulated critical discourses on new topics in the context of craft education.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploration with AI prompted the teaching staff to contemplate the long-held fears of automation and its relationship to craft making and teaching.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 63
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Liisa, from the teaching staff, reflected on the potential benefits of new kinds of externalization:”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the teaching staff also reflected that learning crafts and craft-related skills in designing and making is a slow process that takes years of practice.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking an alternative perspective, teachers also pondered the opportunities of using AI-generated visualizations for analyzing situative design constraints, like Vuokko proposed:”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On a positive note, the participants saw many opportunities for enhancing idea generation in the process of product design.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · hedged
“Teachers talked about how AI may assist the ideation process by providing new perspectives and visualizing the possible and the impossible.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The creation of digital designs was also associated with clothing avatars, which could potentially decrease material consumption in real life.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, teacher educators also reflected on the positive feelings and well-being that may emerge from digital design.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The teaching staff were concerned that ideas that were visualized using AI might not stay within the design constraints, such as limitations regarding materials, available resources and actual craft skills and the knowledge of students.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, his peer, Siiri, elaborated on Aapo's idea by stating that the text-based generation of visualizations may help children in wording vague ideas:”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
hedgedstates a possible causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, the pre-service teachers reflected on how touching, forming materials, and making with your own hands gives rich sensory experiences and activates brain areas that are crucial in child development.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The workshop's pre-task revealed that the topic was new for almost all of the participants.”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.3. Workshop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Aapo further saw opportunities for scaffolding that the externalization of mental images could open up for children as well as for teachers through gradual prompt-crafting:”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the question of copyright would have deserved more time for a facilitated discussion, as the participants chiefly considered the copyright question from the intellectual property viewpoint but not in terms of the fair use doctrine of the copyright law.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The teaching staff recognized some similarities between the way AI, on the one hand, and human designers, on the other hand, rely on what they have seen before.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: People’s design ideas rarely appear out of thin air, but reflect what people have seen and experienced.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Students also raised other concerns with regard to the power of algorithms, affecting not just what people can create and how these systems are used but, more profoundly, how AI-generated images with personalized styles can be used for marketing and behaviour engineering.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, concerns about new kinds of behaviour engineering based on aesthetic styles were also raised, along with concerns about the production of fake images that may ultimately alter our cultural memory (are all AI-generated images ‘fake,’ and if so, what is ‘genuine’?).”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“She further recognized that platform owners hold a significant degree of power in the process of design:”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, AI was discussed in terms of emotions and embodied interactions that were also seen as crucial for human learning, development and well-being.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While creating new designs with AI and engaging in shared discourses, the teachers also agreed that many of the issues and concerns that were raised should at least be taken into account when introducing AI topics in craft education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“AI was also envisioned to help children externalize vague design ideas in a manner that makes them visible to teachers (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Kangas Citation2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Kangas Citation2013
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thirdly, explorations on generative AI prompted teachers to re-evaluate the concept of creativity (Oppenlaender Citation2022), and also the ways in which data-driven design and black-box algorithms could lead to the repetition of ideas and styles, to maintaining existing biases, and even to copyright violations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“By critically weighing the societal implications of generative AI, the participants’ reflections addressed not just the potential, but also the imperfections, fragility and subjectivity of these technologies that are becoming part of the world’s fabric (Audry Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Audry Citation2021
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition, digital design was perceived to lack the embodiment and materiality that characterize the essence of craft making and craft education in Finland (see Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Kangas Citation2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Kangas Citation2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of AI-powered design tools prompted few questions about the assessment of creative learning, especially concerning the design skills under assessment.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI-generated images also prompted much discussion on copyright.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the teachers were critically reflecting on the potential risks and harms of AI-generated images and data-driven design, there was recognition that such issues should become an integral part of teaching.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants associated touching and forming different materials with one's hands with children's brain development, indicating a view of what should not be automated.”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In terms of design constraints (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Hakkarainen Citation2000), they suspected that the use of generative AI would create completely new skill gaps where AI-created visualizations and the available material resources or actual skills and knowledge of the students do not meet.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Hakkarainen Citation2000
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The workshop participants experimented with niche Peruvian designs that might suffer from underrepresentation or misrepresentation due to possibly limited volume in training data, but the results did not lead to discussion.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The teaching staff and pre-service teachers alike pondered whether too strong a reliance on existing ideas and styles could lead to a vicious circle of repeating the same ideas ad nauseam and reinforcing existing biases.”
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, the participants also pointed out various limitations of generative AI for craft education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, pre-service teachers also discussed how developments in technology are, in fact, rapidly transforming work life and society, which makes it difficult to predict the future skills that the next generations will need.”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They all employ neural networks, trained using massive numbers of pictures and their textual descriptions publicly available on the Internet and in public repositories (Saharia et al. Citation2022, 9; Bommasani et al. Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Saharia et al. Citation2022, 9
- Not checked yetcites Bommasani et al. Citation2021
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“what the recent models do is generate highly aesthetic images from the user’s text prompts, requiring little to no understanding of the underlying technology (Oppenlaender Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Oppenlaender (Citation2022) argues that human creativity in text-based generative art is not located in the end product (the digital image), but emerges from the evolving interaction between humans and the AI (e.g. prompt engineering).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Oppenlaender (Citation2022) pointed out that with text-to-image generative systems, basically anyone can create impressive and novel content.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To increase the reliability of the data analysis, the interpretations were discussed between the two researchers, and several data examples are provided in the results section for readers to evaluate our interpretations (see Hammer and Berland Citation2014).”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.5. Data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hammer and Berland Citation2014
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The research was conducted in accordance with the instructions of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK Citation2019).”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.2. Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites TENK Citation2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, as an uncurated data-driven system, the digital content created by generative AI can incorporate the biases and stereotypes that have long existed in society, such as favouring or marginalizing individuals or groups based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other attributes.”
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design and implementation processes in the workshop were co-configured with teacher educator experts to serve their specific needs and requests.”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.1. Context of the study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Unlike many other countries, Finland has included craft into general education as a compulsory school subject for all students (Pöllänen Citation2009).”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.1. Context of the study
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pöllänen Citation2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There has been a backlash against the common practice of training models using publicly available images on the Internet with no curation, no consent from or knowledge of the image owners and no ability to exclude one's pictures from the training data, other than making pictures private altogether (Paullada et al. Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Paullada et al. Citation2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The ability to near-faithfully reproduce styles from art history, pop culture and individual artists has also raised critical voices and concerns surrounding copyright violation (Liu and Chilton Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu and Chilton Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When generating novel ideas, designers typically seek various sources of inspiration, such as photographs, artwork, swatches, previous garments, artefacts or natural objects (Keller, Pasman, and Stappers Citation2006; Petre, Sharp, and Johnson Citation2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keller, Pasman, and Stappers Citation2006
- Not checked yetcites Petre, Sharp, and Johnson Citation2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Eckert and Stacey (Citation2000) argued that almost all design proceeds by transforming, combining and adapting elements of previous ideas and designs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eckert and Stacey Citation2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure the anonymity of the participants, no demographic details were collected.”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.2. Participants
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Based on the user's prompt, the AI then outputs an original image that has never existed before (McGeehan Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McGeehan Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To sum up, the rapid development of text-to-image generative models may open up novel opportunities and challenges for fostering innovation, creativity and participation in school education.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“thematic analysis, which has become a widely-used method for analyzing qualitative data (Braun and Clarke Citation2006).”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.5. Data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Braun and Clarke Citation2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two most common image databases used to train text/image AI are LAION-400M and LAION-5B, which provide 400 million and 5.85 billion image—text pairs, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Midjourney and other similar tools have quickly given birth to interest-driven content-creation communities (Oppenlaender Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All data collection procedures received institutional approval by the administration of the Department of Teacher Education.”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.2. Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Generative machine-learning models are already used, for example, for creating digital art (Audry Citation2021), composing music (Huang et al. Citation2020), free-hand sketching and drawing (Ghosh et al. Citation2019) and creative writing (Gero and Chilton Citation2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Audry Citation2021
- Not checked yetcites Huang et al. Citation2020
- Not checked yetcites Ghosh et al. Citation2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The current state of the art in this field relies on a class of techniques called diffusion models, which are able to achieve photorealistic quality and generalize to images that have never previously appeared in the set of pictures used to train the model (Dhariwal and Nichol Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dhariwal and Nichol Citation2021
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, democratic society has been challenged by fake content (Valtonen et al. Citation2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Valtonen et al. Citation2019
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Audry (Citation2021) argues that generative AI nurtures new human-machine relationships by displacing and reconfiguring the agencies involved in the creative endeavours.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Audry Citation2021
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition, Finnish craft education is oriented toward a critical understanding of everyday technological phenomena, as well as the use of technology for enhancing inventive, creative and inquiry-based learning (FNBoE Citation2014).”
§ 4. Methodology > 4.1. Context of the study
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites FNBoE Citation2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This growing ecosystem of services, easy-to-use tools and enthusiastic communities also contributes to making text-to-image generative content creation more accessible to newcomers and non-technical users (Oppenlaender Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent developments in generative AI techniques have made text-to-image generative models increasingly popular for creating visual content and artwork based on text prompts in natural language (Dhariwal and Nichol Citation2021; Liu and Chilton Citation2022; Oppenlaender Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dhariwal and Nichol Citation2021
- Not checked yetcites Liu and Chilton Citation2022
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Every data set—even those that contain billions of image—text pairs scraped from the Internet—incorporates some world view, and slices the world into categories that may be highly problematic (Bowker and Star Citation2000; Keyes Citation2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bowker and Star Citation2000
- Not checked yetcites Keyes Citation2018
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as the tensions captured in this article are based on craft teachers’ first encounters with generative AI, it remains to be seen whether and how these technologies and experienced tensions will be actualized in educational practice.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While popular training sets contain images that are protected by intellectual property laws, it has been argued that the fair use doctrine, which has been interpreted as sanctioning the automated massive scale scraping of the Internet for training data, also ultimately aligns with the goal of creating fairer AI systems (Levendowski Citation2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levendowski Citation2018
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Creative making may be an important way to raise awareness and generate alternative or resistant imaginaries (Lupton and Watson Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lupton and Watson Citation2022
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generative AI provides a new medium for expressing one’s design ideas; a new medium for creativity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the politics of AI, neither the creators of the material that the AI is trained with nor the people who appear in countless photos learned by AI models have any power or agency (Crawford Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Crawford Citation2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Those three arise from the training data and are related to misrepresentation (e.g. harmfully stereotyped minorities), underrepresentation (e.g. eliminating occurrence of one gender in certain occupations) and overrepresentation (e.g. defaulting to Anglocentric perspectives) (Bommasani et al. Citation2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bommasani et al. Citation2021
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unbiased as they may seem at first, AI models are politically and ideologically laden ways of classifying the rich social and cultural tapestry of the Internet—which itself is a pale reflection of human diversity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, neuroscientific research has shown that the somatosensory, motor, and visual areas of the cortical surface are activated during craft making, and the stimulation of these areas is crucial in childhood (Huotilainen et al. Citation2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huotilainen et al. Citation2018
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study is also limited in that it focused exclusively on text-to-image generative AI and did not explore the benefits or shortcomings posed by other developments in AI.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While there is a legitimate concern that generative AI could end up robbing artists of their livelihood, these easy-to-use technologies may also provide means to foster imagination, self-expression and networked co-creativity in a new way (Fiebrink Citation2019; Audry Citation2021; Oppenlaender Citation2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fiebrink Citation2019
- Not checked yetcites Audry Citation2021
- Not checked yetcites Oppenlaender Citation2022
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
AI and the automation of creative work have received little attention in craft education.
“Artificial intelligence (AI) and the automation of creative work have received little attention in craft education.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no research on applications of text-to-image generative models in school education or in teacher education.
“While there is steady growth in the use of 3D modelling and fabrication technologies in school education, there is, to the best of our knowledge, no research on applications of text-to-image generative models in school education or in teacher education.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an evident lack of research on teachers’ insights into AI, experiences with it, and attitudes toward it, as well as on how AI can liberate or impede the values and skills emphasized in craft, design and technology education.
“There is an evident lack of research on teachers’ insights into AI, experiences with it, and attitudes toward it, as well as on how AI can liberate or impede the values and skills emphasized in craft, design and technology education.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little is known about how text-to-image generative AI will change the dynamics of learning communities and classrooms.
“However, as the technology involved is very recent, little is known about how it will change the dynamics of learning communities and classrooms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People’s design ideas rarely appear out of thin air, but reflect what people have seen and experienced.
“People’s design ideas rarely appear out of thin air, but reflect what people have seen and experienced.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“chatbots present a substantial challenge concerning maintaining academic integrity [20, 56] and copyright violations [83], which are significant concerns in education”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [83]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“chatbots, including ChatGPT, have demonstrated the potential to reshape and revolutionize education, creating new, novel opportunities for enhancing the learning process and outcomes [83], facilitating different learning approaches, and offering a range of pedagogical benefits [19, 43, 72]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [83]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“there is an evident lack of research understanding regarding the potential impact of generative machine learning models within diverse educational settings [83]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [83]
In the citing paper
“chatbots, including ChatGPT, have the potential to significantly impact students' thinking abilities, including retention, reasoning, analysis skills [19, 45], and foster innovation and creativity capabilities [83]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [83]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5. Results > 5.2. Unforeseen tension and concerns
“Students also raised other concerns with regard to the power of algorithms, affecting not just what people can create and how these systems are used but, more profoundly, how AI-generated images with personalized styles can be used for marketing and behaviour engineering. Liisa said,”
§ 5. Results > 5.1. Tensions and tradeoffs in the process of design
“Liisa, from the teaching staff, reflected on the potential benefits of new kinds of externalization:”
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 · Cited by 6,188
The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.184834 · Cited by 4,409
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111 · Cited by 3,687
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 2×
“2020), research reports on AI education for all (Long and Magerko 2020) and AI initiatives in K-12 (Zhou, Van”
BackgroundBig other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization
Zuboff, S. (2015) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5 · Cited by 3,205
Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism
Noble, S. U. (2020) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · Cited by 2,709
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 · Cited by 2,132
Palette: Image-to-Image Diffusion Models
Saharia, C., Chan, W., Chang, H., Lee, C., Ho, J., Salimans, T., Fleet, D., & Norouzi, M. (2022) · Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Proceedings · doi:10.1145/3528233.3530757 · Cited by 1,717
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Caramiaux B., 2022, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1-24
- 10.1145/3271625 · DOI
- Heikkilä , M. 2022. “This Artist is Dominating AI-Generated Art. And he’s not Happy about it.” MIT Tech Review , September 16, 2022.
- Levendowski A., 2018, Washington Law Review, 93, 579
- Martinez S., 2016, Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering and Engineering in the Classroom. In 2016 Edi
- Patel, K. 2008. "Thinkers in the Kitchen: Embodied Thinking and Learning in Practice." Ann Arbour (MI): UMI dissertation services ProQuest.
- Seitamaa-Hakkarainen P., 2013, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, 1369
- TENK. 2019. The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf.
- Vartiainen H., 2020, Techne Series, 27, 52
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784
Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning
Yan, L., Greiff, S., Teuber, Z., & Gašević, D. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5 · Cited by 499
“…of AI terms), have shown promise in automating various learning tasks 2 , delivering feedback on human efficacy 3 , outperforming average stu dents in reflective writing 4 , innovating conversational assessments 5 , creating dynamic learning resources 6 and supporting multimedia learning 7 .”
Artificial intelligence in teaching and teacher professional development: A systematic review
Tan, X., Cheng, G., & Ling, M. H. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100355 · Cited by 420
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 · Cited by 452
A Comprehensive Review on Generative AI for Education
Mittal, U., Sai, S., Chamola, V., & Sangwan, D. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3468368 · Cited by 383
Prompt engineering in higher education: a systematic review to help inform curricula
Lee, D., & Palmer, E. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00503-7 · Cited by 388
Generative AI and ChatGPT in School Children’s Education: Evidence from a School Lesson
Jauhiainen, J. S., & Guerra, A. G. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151814025 · Cited by 234
La nueva realidad de la educación ante los avances de la inteligencia artificial generativa
García Peñalvo, F. J., Llorens-Largo, F., & Vidal, J. (2023) · RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia · doi:10.5944/ried.27.1.37716 · Cited by 238
Generative AI in Higher Education: The ChatGPT Effect
Chan, C. K. Y., & Colloton, T. (2024) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9781003459026 · Cited by 203
Singh, K., Chatterjee, S., & Mariani, M. M. (2024) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103021 · Cited by 220
A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education
Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2 · Cited by 191
Yan, L., Martínez‐Maldonado, R., & Gašević, D. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3636555.3636856 · Cited by 175
Huang, K.-L., Liu, Y., Dong, M.-Q., & Lu, C.-C. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101929 · Cited by 112
Huang, K.-L., Liu, Y., & Dong, M.-Q. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101508 · Cited by 112
Lee, U., Han, A., Lee, J., Lee, E., Kim, J., Kim, H., & Lim, C. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12150-4 · Cited by 107
Integrating Generative AI Into K-12 Curriculums and Pedagogies in India
Sharma, D. M., Ramana, K. V., Jothilakshmi, R., Verma, R., Maheswari, B. U., & Boopathi, S. (2023) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0487-7.ch006 · Cited by 92
Exploring the generative AI adoption in service industry: A mixed-method analysis
Gupta, R., & Rathore, B. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103997 · Cited by 86
Building machines that learn and think with people
Collins, K. M., Sucholutsky, I., Bhatt, U., Chandra, K., Wong, L., Lee, M., Zhang, C. E., Zhi‐Xuan, T., Ho, M. K., Mansinghka, V. K., et al. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01991-9 · Cited by 128
The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization
Skulmowski, A. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09818-1 · Cited by 76
“The potentials for externalization and people’s willingness to do so are currently being investigated (e.g., Vartiainen & Tedre, 2023), and it will be interesting to see how the relationship between humans and AI will develop in the future and whether it will be normalized to offload certain tasks…”
BackgroundCo-creating digital art with generative AI in K-9 education: Socio-material insights
Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Jormanainen, I. (2023) · International Journal of Education Through Art · doi:10.1386/eta_00143_1 · Cited by 73
Self-citationChen, J., Zhuo, Z., & Lin, J. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152416928 · Cited by 79
Inteligencia artificial generativa y educación
García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2024) · Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) · doi:10.14201/eks.31942 · Cited by 179
Blurring the lines: how AI is redefining artistic ownership and copyright
Watiktinnakorn, C., Seesai, J., & Kerdvibulvech, C. (2023) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-023-00088-y · Cited by 58
Foroughi, B., Naghmeh‐Abbaspour, B., Wen, J., Ghobakhloo, M., Al‐Emran, M., & Al-Sharafi, M. A. (2025) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.4186 · Cited by 56
Graphic Design Education in the Era of Text‐to‐Image Generation: Transitioning to Contents Creator
Hwang, Y., & Wu, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Art & Design Education · doi:10.1111/jade.12558 · Cited by 47
Alshamy, A., Al-Harthi, A. S. A., & Abdullah, S. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15040501 · Cited by 46
Enhancing children’s understanding of algorithmic biases in and with text-to-image generative AI
Vartiainen, H., Kahila, J., Tedre, M., López‐Pernas, S., & Pope, N. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241252820 · Cited by 67
Self-citationHarnessing generative artificial intelligence to support nature‐based solutions
Richards, D. R., Worden, D., Song, X. P., & Lavorel, S. (2024) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10622 · Cited by 59
Large language models and political science
Linegar, M., Kocielnik, R., & Alvarez, R. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2023.1257092 · Cited by 57
Song, Z., Qin, J., Jin, F., Cheung, W. M., & Lin, C. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2025.105157 · Cited by 66
Artificial intelligence as relational artifacts in creative learning
Lim, J., Leinonen, T., Lipponen, L., Lee, H., DeVita, J., & Murray, D. (2023) · Digital Creativity · doi:10.1080/14626268.2023.2236595 · Cited by 55
Kim, S. J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3382194 · Cited by 57
Shao, Z., Chen, J., Zeng, H., Hu, W., Xu, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings14061528 · Cited by 50
Shen, X., Mo, X., & Xia, T. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2365959 · Cited by 43
DesignGPT: Multi-Agent Collaboration in Design
Ding, S., Chen, X., Fang, Y. N., Liu, W., Qiu, Y., & Chai, C. (2023) · International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design · doi:10.1109/iscid59865.2023.00056 · Cited by 59
Artificial Intelligence: An Overview
Jaboob, A. S., Durrah, O., & Chakir, A. (2024) · Synthesis lectures on engineering, science, and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50300-9_1 · Cited by 34
Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review
Li, M., Enkhtur, A., Yamamoto, B. A., Cheng, F., & Chen, L. (2025) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.750 · Cited by 57
Generative AI in Creative Practice: ML-Artist Folk Theories of T2I Use, Harm, and Harm-Reduction
Shelby, R., Rismani, S., & Rostamzadeh, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642461 · Cited by 33
Wang, C. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3412176 · Cited by 38
Unveiling the Canvas: Sustainable Integration of AI in Visual Art Education
Su, H., & Mokmin, N. A. M. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16177849 · Cited by 33
Xu, Y. H., Zhong, Y., & Cao, W. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-03805-y · Cited by 31
Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., An, X., Zahid, H., & Asif, M. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70050 · Cited by 33
AI‐Driven Generative Design Redefines the Engineering Process
Channi, H. K., Kaur, A., & Kaur, S. P. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394271078.ch17 · Cited by 30
Hwang, Y., Lee, J. H., & Shin, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05373 · Cited by 29
“This aligns with numerous studies supporting the idea that generative AI in education fosters a culture of co-creation between humans and AI (Jeon & Lee, 2023; Oppenlaender, 2023; Vartiainen & Tedre, 2023).”
BackgroundEmerging human-technology relationships in a co-design process with generative AI
Vartiainen, H., Liukkonen, P., & Tedre, M. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101742 · Cited by 28
Self-citationWhite Default: Examining Racialized Biases Behind AI-Generated Images
Park, Y. S. (2024) · Art education · doi:10.1080/00043125.2024.2330340 · Cited by 32
Cognitive styles and design performances in conceptual design collaboration with GenAI
Liu, H., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., Shou, Y., Yin, Y., & Chai, C. (2024) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-024-09937-y · Cited by 31
The use of deep learning and artificial intelligence-based digital technologies in art education
Liu, Y., & Zhu, C. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-00892-9 · Cited by 28
Blockchain: The Economic and Financial Institution for Autonomous AI?
Thanh, B. N., Son, H. X., & Vo, D. T. H. (2024) · Journal of risk and financial management · doi:10.3390/jrfm17020054 · Cited by 37
A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on ChatGPT in EducationPreprint
Albadarin, Y., Tukiainen, M., Saqr, M., & Pope, N. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4562771 · Cited by 26
Zhu, Z., Ren, Y., & Shen, A. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13551-3 · Cited by 30
Karimova, G. Z., Kim, Y. D., & Shirkhanbeik, A. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12877-8 · Cited by 34
Stable diffusion in architectural design: Closing doors or opening new horizons?
Cao, Y., Aziz, M. A. A., & Arshard, W. N. R. M. (2024) · International Journal of Architectural Computing · doi:10.1177/14780771241270257 · Cited by 24
Purposeful remixing with generative AI: Constructing designer voice in multimodal composing
Tan, X., Xu, W., & Wang, C. (2024) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102893 · Cited by 24
The impact of Gen AI on art and design program education
Yang, Z., & Shin, J. (2024) · The Design Journal · doi:10.1080/14606925.2024.2425084 · Cited by 30
Towards data-efficient mechanical design of bicontinuous composites using generative AI
Masrouri, M., & Zhao Qin, A. (2024) · Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.taml.2024.100492 · Cited by 25
Li, J., & Liu, Q. (2024) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-024-02152-z · Cited by 23
RetractedTeaching AI with games: the impact of generative AI drawing on computational thinking skills
Hsu, T., & Hsu, T.-P. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13624-3 · Cited by 27
Advanced 3D Food Printing with Simultaneous Cooking and Generative AI Design
Lee, C. K. W., Xu, Y., Yuan, Q., Chan, Y. H. T., Poon, W. Y., Zhong, H., Chen, S., & Li, G. (2025) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202408282 · Cited by 20
One year in the classroom with ChatGPT: empirical insights and transformative impacts
Guo, F., Li, T., & Cunningham, C. J. L. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1574477 · Cited by 35
Deepfakes on Demand: The rise of accessible non-consensual deepfake image generators
Hawkins, W., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732107 · Cited by 20
“They have since proven to be useful for a variety of tasks, including urban architecture, animation, education, and e-commerce advertising [27, 47, 57, 60, 64].”
Heaton, R., Low, J. H., & Chen, V. (2024) · Pedagogies An International Journal · doi:10.1080/1554480x.2024.2395260 · Cited by 19
Exploring the Potential of Generative AI in English Language Teaching
Ironsi, C. S. (2023) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0487-7.ch007 · Cited by 24
Hang, C. N., & Ho, S. (2025) · IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) · doi:10.1109/isec64801.2025.11147254 · Cited by 17
Medel-Vera, C., Britton, S., & Gates, W. F. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100501 · Cited by 26
Rong, W., Xiao, M., Zhao, L., & Zhou, X. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16121070 · Cited by 28
Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Footwear Design Concept and Ideation
Cheng, S.-H. (2023) · IEEE Eurasia Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Healthcare and Sustainability (ECBIOS) · doi:10.3390/engproc2023055032 · Cited by 16
Xu, C. Q., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings14103288 · Cited by 19
Bias by Default.: Neocolonial Visual Vocabularies in AI Image Generating Design Practices.
de Almeida, F., & Rafael, S. (2024) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3613905.3644053 · Cited by 22
A Critical Assessment of Modern Generative Models’ Ability to Replicate Artistic Styles
Asperti, A., George, F., Marras, T., Stricescu, R. C., & Zanotti, F. (2025) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc9090231 · Cited by 23
Elsharif, W., Alzubaidi, M. S., & Agus, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3585745 · Cited by 26
The future of advertising campaigns: The role of AI-generated images in advertising creative
Matthews, J., Fastnedge, D., & Nairn, A. (2023) · Journal of Pervasive Media · doi:10.1386/jpm_00003_1 · Cited by 16
Joynt, V., Cooper, J., Bhargava, N., Vu, K., Kwon, O. H., Allen, T. R., Verma, A., & Radaideh, M. I. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-79705-4 · Cited by 14
Adapting to generative AI: Examining the users' coping strategies of generative AI image systems
Lee, C. T., Shen, Y., Wang, C.-H., & Hung, H.-Y. (2025) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124193 · Cited by 17
Chen, J., Mokmin, N. A. M., & Qi, S. (2025) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2025.2510395 · Cited by 15
Designing with words: exploring the integration of text-to-image models in industrial design
Barros, M., & Ai, Q. (2024) · Digital Creativity · doi:10.1080/14626268.2024.2411223 · Cited by 13
Exploring Multimodal Generative AI for Education through Co-design Workshops with Students
Prasad, P., Balse, R., & Balchandani, D. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714146 · Cited by 20
Liu, X., Lau, N. M. L., Chuin, A., Leung, W.-K., Ho, A.-T. T., Das, M., Liu, M., & Kwok, C. (2023) · International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI) · doi:10.1145/3629606.3629625 · Cited by 18
Apiola, M., Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M. (2024) · Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3649217.3653596 · Cited by 13
Self-citationPoleac, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Business Excellence · doi:10.2478/picbe-2024-0240 · Cited by 13
Clarifying Ethical Dilemmas of Using Artificial Intelligence in Research Writing: A Rapid Review
Ugwu, N. F., Igbinlade, A. S., Ochiaka, R. E., Ezeani, U. D., Okorie, N. C., Opele, J. K., Onayinka, T. S., Iroegbu, O., Onyekwere, O. K., Adams, A. B., et al. (2024) · Higher Learning Research Communications · doi:10.18870/hlrc.v142.1549 · Cited by 29
Malakul, S. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70083 · Cited by 12
Blundell, C. N., Mukherjee, M. M., & Nykvist, S. S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13699-y · Cited by 26
HİÇYİLMAZ, Y. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251382812 · Cited by 21
Unfolding the Potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Bonnet, S., & Teuteberg, F. (2025) · International Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.4018/ijkm.368223 · Cited by 13
Liu, R., Wu, T., Chu, J., & Qu, P. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101967 · Cited by 13
Making Peace with Artificial Intelligence ( AI ) in Art Education
Heaton, R. (2025) · International Journal of Art & Design Education · doi:10.1111/jade.12614 · Cited by 11
Liu, B., & Liao, Y. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13394-y · Cited by 12
Luo, Z., & Tahir, R. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00513-6 · Cited by 10
Revolutionizing Content Creation and Curriculum Development Through Generative AI
Singha, S., & Singha, R. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1351-0.ch013 · Cited by 11
Generative AI in Learning Design: A Systematic Review
Alkhasawneh, S. N., Λαμπρόπουλος, Γ., & Hernández‐Leo, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98459-4_2 · Cited by 14
Economic news using LSTM and GRU models for text summarization in deep learning
Tawong, K., Pholsukkarn, P., Noawaroongroj, P., & Siriborvornratanakul, T. (2024) · Journal of Data Information and Management · doi:10.1007/s42488-023-00111-y · Cited by 9
Use of Generative AI Tools to Facilitate Personalized Learning in the Flipped Classroom
Zhen, H., & Yahaya, W. A. J. W. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1351-0.ch016 · Cited by 9
Obura, E. A., & Emoit, P. I. (2024) · Africa Education Review · doi:10.1080/18146627.2024.2440351 · Cited by 16
Perdana, A., Bharathi, S. V., & Lee, W. E. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102035 · Cited by 13
Morari, V., Grimes, D., & Hawe, D. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09689-x · Cited by 11
Nature redux: interrogating biomorphism and soft robot aesthetics through generative AI
Christiansen, M. B., Rafsanjani, A., & Jørgensen, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2024.1472051 · Cited by 8
Advancing Interior Design with AI: Controllable Stable Diffusion for Panoramic Image Generation
Yang, W., Wang, C., Liu, L., Dong, S., & Zhao, Y. (2025) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings15081391 · Cited by 8
Characterizing Photorealism and Artifacts in Diffusion Model-Generated Images
Kamali, N., Nakamura, K., Kumar, A., Chatzimparmpas, A., Hullman, J. R., & Groh, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713962 · Cited by 23
Zhu, M., & Wang, C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4684304 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Eastern Finland (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Vartiainen, Henriikka
- Venue
- Digital Creativity
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-01-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 1462-6268 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-3806
- OpenAlex
- W4321596574
- Semantic Scholar
- b2503e37c3bb9be19ba53268b992e29c81080aad
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 28
- FWCI
- 61.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Digital Creativity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Strategic Research Council (352859 and #352876)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art Education and Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
- Keywords
- generative AI, text-to-image models, craft education, teacher educators, creative making, algorithmic bias, copyright, power relations, data-driven design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
