Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

The Effects of Different Patterns of Group Collaborative Learning on Fourth-Grade Students’ Creative Thinking in a Digital Artificial Intelligence Course

Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12674; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912674

by Xiaoyong Hu^1,2, Yue Liu³, Jie Huang¹ and Su Mu^1,2,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Robin Samuelsson

Reviewer 3:

Leonie Brummer

Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12674; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912674

Submission received: 16 August 2022 / Revised: 27 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 5 October 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Education for Sustaining Our Society)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to re-review this work.

The abstract reads better now but I have questions about some of the wordings and have added those directly to the PDF. I also am confused about the use of both parametric and non-parametric tests for data analysis. It appeared the same data was analysed using two types of analyses. Maybe this needs to be clarified. Please write acronyms in full for their first mention in the abstract. I have also marked some other language issues to address.

The introduction does a good job of explaining the goals and significance of the study. I have marked a couple of places for considering language use and also there needs some citations to backup the claims made.

I am still uncertain why the authors have placed procedures in the literature review sections of the paper. It seems that it should be moved as previously suggested to the proper section.

Some other questions have been noted in the literature.

The first research question is rather weak as it's only structured as a "yes/no" question. It would be better to rephrase it in a way that allows further discussion on the topic. The second research question is fine.

How was it ensured that learners in the different groups applied one of the four patterns of group collaborative learning? For example, if you don't assign a leader then a leader may naturally form within a group. How do you account for these natural phenomenon?

I highly suggest that you clarify the issue mentioned in the paper "Note that according to local rules, it was not necessary to ask for the consent of the students' parents." If you don't deal with this issue, I am afraid someone may later come after your paper and try to get it retracted if it is published. I say this is as colleague hoping to prevent you future problems. It is best to deal with this issue sooner than later.

For the data analysis section, Please report on the assumptions of these tests and whether the data met them and why particular parametric and non parametric tests were performed.

Provide a citation for effect size interpretations.

Reasons for running certain tests on certain data belongs in the data analysis or results section, not in the discussion section.

Other sections are fine.

Please see the pdf for more details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to thank the editor for handling our paper and the reviewers for their hard work and constructive comments. We found the reviews to be helpful in further improving the quality of our manuscript. We have replied to the reviewers' comments, and we have updated the revised manuscript with yellow highlighting that indicates the changes. Finally, we have improved the language with the help of a professional language editor to make it more logical and flow better.

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 1:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to re-review this work.

The abstract reads better now but I have questions about some of the wordings and have added those directly to the PDF.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised the questions in our manuscript according to you comment added in the PDF.

I also am confused about the use of both parametric and non-parametric tests for data analysis. It appeared the same data was analysed using two types of analyses. Maybe this needs to be clarified.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have added the results of the normality test in our manuscript. The data of this study conform to normal distribution. Thus, we used parametric tests to analyze the data (p. 10-11, lines 419-423). The non-parametric test has been replaced with a parametric test, that is One way ANOVA (p. 13, lines 458-459; p. 13, lines 467-468; p. 14, lines 482-4823).

P.10-11, lines 419-423: The score of creative thinking was a continuous variable, so it can be tested for normality. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the results of the pre- and post-test of creative thinking were from the normally distributed population in this study. Therefore, we used parametric tests including a paired sample t test and One way ANOVA to analyze our data to confirm our hypotheses.

P.13, lines 458-459: One way ANOVA was conducted for the pre-test of creative thinking of the four experimental groups.

P.13, lines 467-468: One way ANOVA was also conducted for the post-test of creative thinking for the four experimental groups.

P.14, lines 482-483: Table 6 shows the One-way ANOVA result of the four sub-dimensions of creative thinking among the four experimental groups.

Please write acronyms in full for their first mention in the abstract. I have also marked some other language issues to address.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised the questions in our manuscript according to your comment added in the PDF and we have written the acronyms in full for their first mention in the abstract. Details can be seen in the yellow parts of the abstract. For example: artificial intelligence (AI), Torrance Creative Thinking Test (TTCT-Figure), Group 1 (G1), Group 2 (G2), Group 3 (G3), Group 4 (G4).

Furthermore, we have added more description of what pattern was used for each group in the abstract.

P.1, lines 26-32: Group 1 (G1) adopted the pattern of collaborative learning with no leadership role assigned and no consensus-building after group discussion. Group 2 (G2) adopted the pattern of collaborative learning with no leadership role assigned but consensus-building after group discussion. Group 3 (G3) adopted the pattern with an assigned leadership role but no consensus-building after group discussion. Group 4 (G4) adopted the pattern with an assigned leadership role and consensus-building after group discussion.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised the improper language use in the introduction section (p.2, lines 90-92).

P.2, lines 90-92: The aim of cultivating students’ creative thinking using collaborative learning cannot be achieved simply by grouping students; additional factors are necessary.

We have added relevant references. Please see references [2], [7], and [21] for details.

Cantu-Ortiz, F. J., Sanchez, N. G., Garrido, L., Terashima-Marin, H., Brena, RF. An artificial intelligence educational strategy for the digital transformation. IJIDEM, 2020, 14(4), 1195-1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00702-8
7.Shaheen, R. Creativity and Education. Creat.Educ. 2010, 1(3), 166-169. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2010.13026
Zurita, G.,Nussbaum, M., Salinas, R. Dynamic grouping in collaborative learning supported by wireless handhelds, Educ. Technol. Soc. 2005, 8 (3) , 149-161.

I am still uncertain why the authors have placed procedures in the literature review sections of the paper. It seems that it should be moved as previously suggested to the proper section.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have moved the paragraph about procedures in the literature review section into Section 3.2.

Some other questions have been noted in the literature.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have corrected the questions existing in the literature according to your note in the PDF.

The first research question is rather weak as it's only structured as a "yes/no" question. It would be better to rephrase it in a way that allows further discussion on the topic.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have modified the statement of research question 1 (p. 7, lines 293-294).

P.7, lines 293-294:

1) What is the impact of the four patterns of group cooperative learning on fourth-grade students' creative thinking in the digital AI course?

The second research question is fine.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The researcher sent the requirements of each group to the four groups in advance, and monitored the whole process. If there were inappropriate actions, the researcher corrected them in time. The leader of the group was assigned by the teacher according to the students’ prior learning performance. A detailed description has been added in Section 3.1 (p. 7, lines 306-310).

P.7, lines 306-310:

Each group was assigned to apply one of the four patterns of group collaborative learning. Since the four patterns of group learning had specific requirements, each group member was asked to follow the requirements. The researcher monitored the whole process and corrected the group members’ wrong or inappropriate behaviors according to the requirements in a timely manner.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments. We have got the signed informed consent letters from the teacher and the students. We sent them to the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Normal University, and they approved. The approval code has been added in the Informed Consent Statement (p. 18, lines 654-655).

P.18, lines 654-655: This study was approved by the ethics committee of Nanjing Normal University (NNU202209001).

For the data analysis section, Please report on the assumptions of these tests and whether the data met them and why particular parametric and non parametric tests were performed.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

In the Results section, we reported the results of the data analysis and the answers to the research questions. Details can be seen in yellow in Section 4.1 (p. 12, lines 440-441) and Section 4.2 (p. 13, lines 475).

We have added the results of the normality test to our manuscript. The data of this study conform to normal distribution. Thus, we used parametric tests to analyze the data.

Section 4.2 (P.11, lines 440-441): Thus, RQ1 was answered.

Section 4.3 (P.13, lines 475): Thus, RQ2 was answered.

Provide a citation for effect size interpretations.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have added citations for effect size interpretations in Section 4.2 (p. 11, lines 434-435).

P.11, lines 434-435:

Hedges’ g and Glass’s delta were used to calculate the effect sizes which can detect the t-test effect [79].

79. Hedges, L. V. Distribution theory for glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. J. Educ. Statis, 1981, 6(2), 107-128. doi: 2307/1164588

Reasons for running certain tests on certain data belongs in the data analysis or results section, not in the discussion section.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have deleted redundant description of the reasons for running certain tests in the discussion section and added it to the data analysis section (p. 10, lines 410-416).

P.10, lines 410-416:

To assess whether the patterns of group collaborative learning could promote fourth-grade students’ creative thinking, a paired sample t test was applied to compare the pre- and post-test of students’ scores of their creative thinking. Then One way ANOVA and Bonferroni alpha error adjustment were applied to examine the difference among the four patterns of group collaborative learning in the promotion of fourth-grade students' creative thinking.

Other sections are fine.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors have done a good job at revising and checking the manuscript. It is now more well written and I feel have responded to the former issues in a sound manner.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 2：

The authors have done a good job at revising and checking the manuscript. It is now more well written and I feel have responded to the former issues in a sound manner.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The title as well as the introduction raised expectations about your manuscript and research. The topic you are addressing would be a relevant addition to existing literature. Thank you for this valuable contribution. I will structure my feedback in (a) general remarks (these comments cover feedback applicable in the entire manuscript), and (b) specific remarks (feedback on sentence and/or word level). The specific remarks can include a quote from your original manuscript to refer to a specific section. The specific remarks will refer to page (emphasis added in boldface; e.g., 1.15/16) and row(s; e.g., 11.15/16).

General remarks:

The overall manuscript has potential; however, the current version of the manuscript is not suitable for publication. The terminology used in the manuscript needs to be improved. You need to aim for more consistency and/or select more suitable words (e.g., verbs; see below). I would suggest to have a native English speaker read over your manuscript before submitting it to a journal. Despite that the conclusion/discussion is sound, based on the results, the introduction and methodology still need work.

Specific remarks:

p.1.13 What do you mean with “sustain their future work and life in the digital age”?

p.1.15 I am unsure about the term “form” (in “form of digital technology”). IS this term used in other research as well? Please examine this to evaluate the suitability of the term.

p.1.16 The concept of digital literacy comes as a surprise here. Introduce it properly. In a similar vein, collaborative learning is not properly introduced. The coherence is lacking in the abstract.

p.1.17 The study itself cannot apply anything (you do that as researchers). Please insert a correct verb.

p.1.19 “an assigned leadership role” à I assume that students get this role assigned?

p.1.20/21 You label it here “pattern of collaborative learning” but earlier in your abstract “collaborative learning approach”. This is one of your essential concepts so use one label consistently throughout your manuscript.

p.1.21 “In all” = In total,

p.1.23–26 This is too specific for the abstract, especially if the reader does not have prior knowledge about collaborative learning. In that case, the terms “assigned leadership role” and “consensus building” are confusing.

p.1.28 “pre-test and post-test” = pre- and post-test.

p.1.30 Why is “non-parametric” presented in a different font?

p.1.39/40 The contribution of your study is redundant. Replace this sentence with what your study actually add in practice.

p.1.52 Do you really mean “digital education”? Or do you mean something like digital skills (or digital literacy or digital competences)?

p.1.53 Popular or crucial?

p.1.56 Be careful with intensifiers (e.g., very, greatly). They do not add anything relevant to you message. Improve your argument instead of adding these intensifiers. Please check the remainder of your work for this as well.

p.1 The introduction is incoherent. The first paragraph contain too many concepts without properly introducing the reader to your topic. For example, it is clear that AI contributes (see your rows 57/58 albeit that statement is too general. You can move sooner to that last sentence of that paragraph. The more I read from this section, the more I am inclined to advise to restructure it (present the paragraphs in a different order).

p.1.61 Why do you propose the focus on your study here? Redundant. You need to combine the second sentence of this paragraph to the previous paragraph to (a) create more coherence and (b) to properly introduce your concepts. Information in paragraph two need to be introduced before you propose the last sentence from the first paragraph (that is your main conclusion as to why it is necessary to conduct the study.

p.2.67 “sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge” à You mean that they have the ability to spot these?

p.2.68 The word “plenty” implies inserting two or more sources. You do not do that. Moreover, the word “plenty” is also a subjective label. This is something you want to avoid as well. Moreover, “great group relationship” is not always an outcome (it depends on the group). Be careful with these statements that are not nuanced at all and, therefore, not a valid representation of the concept you want to discuss. The nuance you use in the sentence after that is sufficient.

p.2.88 “desirable” = redundant (this does not add anything to your message).

p.3.92–113 This paragraph belongs in the literature review (or you need to link it better to the previous information).

p.3.126 “AI courses, as inclusive, comprehensive and practical courses” à I do not know what you mean with this.

p.3.127 What key competence do they cultivate? Moreover, the more I read this verb (i.e., to cultivate) the more I think it is rather unspecific. What do you mean with it? For example in the following sentence: “to cultivate their computational thinking”. Replace it with verbs that convey your message better.

p.3.139 “the achievements of AI” à But what are they? You make more of these statements without explaining the goal, the achievement, the competence related to that.

p.4.144/145 You introduce more terms here that require an explanation: cloud classroom teaching system and classroom teaching system. It raises questions about concepts such as digital versus online learning. This needs to be clarified. For example, you can add a footnote addressing this terminology. In row 158 you mention technology-assisted. How does that technology relate to digital (or to online)? This has to be clarified. Moreover, you do not achieve functions. Replace that with a suitable verb.

p.4.148/149 to apply = to use.

p.4.143/154 I have never heard of “the sharing of learning resources”. Replace it with: to share learning resources. Therefore, “realize the sharing of” is redundant.

p.6.266–268 This is information for the methodology. Introducing one aspect of your study here (besides the focus on your study) is odd.

p.7.298/299 This is a yes/no-question. This type of questions are considered poor quality. Can you rephrase your RQ to make it an open-ended question and, as a result, have a higher quality RQ? Furthermore, the verb “promote” implies that you expect that it increases creative thinking. I would rephrase your RQ more neutral because there might be a situation in which the pattern does not positive influence creative thinking. By including a RQ that implies a certain outcome, you diminish results opposite to this assumption.

p.7.305/306 How are those learning experiences determined or measured? How did you reach this conclusion?

p.7.309 What was the mean age (and SD)? Moreover, how was gender distributed?

p.7.313 Informed consent was provided by their parent(s)/caregiver(s); not by themselves. I have never heard of local rules that do not require an adult to give consent for their minor. Did the children themselves gave permission?

p.Table1 Why do you use a square root symbol as a check mark?

p.Figure1 Who is the team leader? Does that relate back to the assignment leadership role?

p.8.339 The Micro-class? This needs more elaboration.

p.Figure2 Insert the image after the paragraph in rows 360 and 367.

p.10.370–372 You are using an adult version of the test. Why? In addition, you present the reliability of the initial development. You need to re-calculate it, especially if you made revisions to the initial instrument.

p.10 Hedges g = Hedges g (the “g” needs to be placed in italics). Also revise the Table 2 accordingly.

p.12.427 The word “non-parametric” is presented in a different font.

p.12.441 “(adjusted sig. = 0.043 < 0.05)” = p = 0.043 (there is not need to insert the remaining information). This also accounts for the information presented on page 13.452–455. You can use existing research as an indication of how to display this.

p.References There is inconsistency within your reference list. First, the comma before the volume number (compare reference 1 with reference 2). Second, you use an en dash or hyphen between the page numbers (compare ref. 1 and ref. 2). This has to be an en dash (not a hyphen). Third, the capital letters use of the document titles is inconsistent (compare ref. 5 with ref. 9). Fourth, the use of spaces between the initials of the authors.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 3:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised our manuscript according to your feedback in general and specific remarks.

General remarks:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have invited a native English speaker to proofread our manuscript (see the proofreading certificate). The unsuitable terminology and words used in the manuscript have been improved. The introduction and methodology sections have been improved according to the reviewers’ comments.

Specific remarks:

p.1.13 What do you mean with “sustain their future work and life in the digital age”?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised the “sustain their future work and life in the digital age” as “support their work and lives in the future” (p. 1, lines 12-16).

P.1, lines 12-16:

Digital technology plays a unique role in the cultivation of students’ creative thinking which helps students solve poorly structured problems with effective and original solutions. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology as one of the emerging digital technologies is used widely in our daily life. It is particularly important to train children in creative thinking through the use of digital technology in an AI course in order to support their future work and lives.

p.1.15 I am unsure about the term “form” (in “form of digital technology”). IS this term used in other research as well? Please examine this to evaluate the suitability of the term.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The term “form” has been deleted after consideration (p. 1, line 14).

P.1, line 14: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology as one of the emerging digital technologies

p.1.16 The concept of digital literacy comes as a surprise here. Introduce it properly. In a similar vein, collaborative learning is not properly introduced. The coherence is lacking in the abstract.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The cultivation of students’ digital literacy is not the focus of this study; thus, digital literacy has been deleted to avoid readers’ confusion (p. 1, lines 15-16).

P.1, lines 15-16: It is particularly important to train children in creative thinking through the use of digital technology in an AI course in order to support their future work and lives.

A sentence about playing the role of introducing collaborative learning has been added in the abstract (p. 1, lines 16-19).

P.1, lines 16-19:

Collaborative learning has been confirmed to be effective for improving students’ thinking skills including their creative thinking. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the impact of different patterns of collaborative learning on fourth-grade students' creative thinking in an AI course.

p.1.17 The study itself cannot apply anything (you do that as researchers). Please insert a correct verb.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This sentence was revised (p. 1, lines 18-19).

P.1, lines 18-19:

Therefore, this study aimed to explore the impact of different patterns of collaborative learning on fourth-grade students' creative thinking in an AI course.

p.1.19 “an assigned leadership role” à I assume that students get this role assigned?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

“an assigned leadership role” means the teacher assigned a leader for the group, and the specific student would get the assigned leadership role (p. 1, lines 22-24).

P.1, lines 22-24:

Therefore, according to whether a leadership role was assigned and a final consensus was built in the group, four patterns of group collaborative learning were designed.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have checked the label used in the manuscript to keep consistent (p. 1. lines 22-25; p. 18, lines 624-629).

P.1, lines 22-25:

Therefore, according to whether a leadership role was assigned and a final consensus was built in the group, four patterns of group collaborative learning were designed. This study compared which pattern of collaborative learning was more effective for the promotion of students' creative thinking.

P.18, lines 624-629: Moreover, this study strengthens the previous research on the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of assigning a leadership role and building consensus when applying group collaborative learning. Practically, the findings of this study can provide some suggestions for primary school instructors to better implement group collaborative learning in AI courses to improve their students’ creative thinking.

p.1.21 “In all” = In total,

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

“In all” has been corrected as “In total” on p. 1. line 25.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments. To make it clearer for readers who do not have prior knowledge of collaborative learning, we have added more specific information and explanation of the terms “assigned leadership role” and “consensus building” in the abstract (p. 1, lines 19-24).

P.1, lines 19-24:

Prior studies provided evidence that the effectiveness of group collaborative learning is determined in part by the teacher assigning a leadership role and training a leader in each group, as well as building consensus after group discussion. Therefore, according to whether a leadership role was assigned and a final consensus was built in the group, four patterns of group collaborative learning were designed.

p.1.28 “pre-test and post-test” = pre- and post-test.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

“pre-test and post-test” have been corrected as “pre- and post-test” in p. 1. line 34.

p.1.30 Why is “non-parametric” presented in a different font?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The non-parametric test has been replaced by One way ANOVA (p. 1, lines 35-37).

The problems about the font have been checked and revised in the manuscript.

P.1, lines 35-37:

One way ANOVA was used to analyze the post-test results of the four groups’ creative thinking to determine differences in their creative thinking.

p.1.39/40 The contribution of your study is redundant. Replace this sentence with what your study actually add in practice.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The contribution of this study has been revised to be more concrete in the Abstract (p. 2, lines 45- 49).

P.2, lines 45-49:

Teachers can adapt the findings of this study to consciously train team leaders in the collaborative learning process and guide them to reach consensus to achieve the goal of fostering creative thinking in digital technology supported courses. To be specific, teachers should let students participate in group collaborative learning in a free way to cultivate their flexibility.

p.1.52 Do you really mean “digital education”? Or do you mean something like digital skills (or digital literacy or digital competences)?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The sentence involving the term “digital education” has been revised (p. 2. lines 57-59).

P.2. lines 57-59:

Nowadays, promoting the development process of digital education relying on AI courses for K-12 is one of the most crucial issues on a global scale.

p.1.53 Popular or crucial?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The term “popular” has been replaced with “crucial” (p. 2. lines 57-59).

P.2. lines 57-59:

Nowadays, promoting the development process of digital education relying on AI courses for K-12 is one of the most crucial issues on a global scale.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This sentence with greatly has been revised (p. 2, lines 59-62).

The unnecessary intensifiers (e.g., very, greatly) have been deleted from the manuscript (p. 4, lines 165-167; p. 5, lines 235-236; p. 18, lines 634-635; p. 18, lines 643-646).

P2, lines 59-62:

Some countries and organizations have put forward important policies to promote AI education to cultivate AI talents with key competences which will be essential for their future careers, including cognitive competence, teamwork competence, and creative thinking.

P.4, lines 165-167:

Therefore, collaborative learning can contribute to students’ thinking skills and learning performance, especially with the support of digital technology.

P.5, lines 235-236:

Touretzky and colleagues [30] called for deeper understanding of AI in students’ early years at school as it can foster creative thinking.

P.18, lines 634-635:

The findings of this study can also be adapted to other courses which use digital technology to promote students’ creative thinking.

P.18, lines 643 to 646:

Third, whether the findings of this study can also be adapted to other courses which use digital technology to promote primary school students’ creative thinking could be explored in the future.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The order of instruction has been restructured to be more coherent.

The first and second paragraphs have been integrated to properly introduce the reader to the topic of this study.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have deleted the redundant sentence: “How to cultivate students’ creative thinking via digital AI courses is the focus of our study.”

The first and second paragraphs have been integrated to properly introduce our main conclusion as to why it is necessary to conduct the study.

p.2.67 “sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge” à You mean that they have the ability to spot these?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The sentence did not give appropriate expression to our meaning. Thus, we have revised this sentence to better describe the characteristics of creative students (p.2, lines 67-69).

P.2, lines 67-69:

Students with creative thinking can envision new possibilities, innovative procedures, and fresh, potentially productive problems instead of following strict rules of reasoning and evidence [6].

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have added more reference after this sentence. The term “plenty” has also been deleted (p. 2, lines 69-71).

P.2, lines 69-71:

Empirical studies on promoting students’ creative thinking have been conducted in order to eliminate the phenomenon that educational practices lag behind the demands of the cultivation of students’ creative thinking [7,8].

Shaheen, R. Creativity and Education. Creat. Educ. 2010, 1(3), 166-169. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2010.13026

The improper expression has been deleted (p. 2, lines 86-88).

P.2, lines 86-88:

Group collaborative learning enhances students’ interaction, builds up a group relationship among students, and increases their motivation [19].

p.2.88 “desirable” = redundant (this does not add anything to your message).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The term “desirable” has been deleted (p. 2, lines 90-92).

P.2, lines 90-92:

The aim of cultivating students’ creative thinking using collaborative learning cannot be achieved simply by grouping students; additional factors are necessary.

p.3.92–113 This paragraph belongs in the literature review (or you need to link it better to the previous information).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The fourth paragraph in the Introduction section has been revised to link better to the previous information (p. 3. lines 95-116).

P.3. lines 95-116:

As simply grouping students cannot achieve the expected effect of collaborative learning, the implementation of collaborative learning relies on a series of group collaborative activities which enhance group members’ participation [21]. Group characteristics, including consensus building and an assigned leadership role, are critical to group collaborative learning [22,23]. Mutual understanding and consensus building have been found to contribute to successful group collaborative learning [24]. Students may interact deeply and construct better shared understanding while reaching a consensus in group collaborative learning [25]. In particular, having an assigned leadership role in the group allows students to promote as many innovative thoughts as possible to reach a better consensus and draw conclusions [26,27]. Therefore, whether an assigned leadership role and consensus building in collaborative learning have an effect on students' creative thinking in digital technology supported AI courses deserves further exploration. To fill this gap, in this study we divided students into four patterns of group collaborative learning based on two dimensions: assigned leadership role and consensus building, in an AI course. Then a 7-week teaching practice was conducted to apply, verify, and compare the effectiveness of these four patterns of group collaborative learning for promoting creative thinking. The aim of this study was to explore how to cultivate primary students’ creative thinking including originality, flexibility, fluency, and elaboration through conducting different patterns of group collaborative learning in AI courses. The findings of this study can provide suggestions for primary school instructors to better implement the patterns of group collaborative learning in AI courses to improve their students’ creative thinking.

p.3.126 “AI courses, as inclusive, comprehensive and practical courses” à I do not know what you mean with this.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The sentence “AI courses, as inclusive, comprehensive and practical courses” has been revised to avoid causing the confusion of readers (p. 3, lines 130-133).

P.3, lines 130-133:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The key competence cultivated by AI courses were students’ skills, cognition and self-learning competence. We have revised this part to convey the message better (p. 3, lines 130-135).

P.3, lines 130-135:

As an integrated course that is closely related to multiple disciplines, AI courses require students to practice, and cultivate their key competences including skills, cognition, and self-learning competence, thus laying a solid foundation for them to adapt to the future [31]. Williams and colleagues [32] developed an AI course named PopBots for pre-K and kindergarten children to improve their computational thinking.

p.3.139 “the achievements of AI” à But what are they? You make more of these statements without explaining the goal, the achievement, the competence related to that.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The term achievement has been replaced with “advantages” (p. 4, lines 144-147).

P.4. lines 144-147:

In digital AI courses which help students experience the practical advantages of AI, understand the principles of AI, and realize the application of AI, students can use digital technology to develop programs and build systems to accurately express themselves, thereby facilitating the development of relevant competencies [31].

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have removed the paragraph about the cloud classroom teaching system into the procedure section (p. 9-10, lines 370-385). We use the cloud classroom teaching system as an instructional tool rather than a concept. Therefore, we did not clarify more information about it. We have replaced the verb “achieve” with “reach” (p. 10, lines 372-373).

P.9-10, lines 370-385: Digital technology was used in this study to support the implementation of digital education in an AI course. The cloud classroom teaching system, a kind of digital teaching system for the education and training industry, provides the following functions: management of students’ devices, sharing of learning materials, presentation of teachers’ operation, collection and uploading of students’ works, and so on. The cloud classroom teaching system was used in the whole teaching process of this study. Before class, the teacher used the cloud classroom teaching system to create an online learning course in advance, form groups, plan learning paths, and design learning materials to make preparations for the AI course. In the class, with the support of the cloud classroom teaching system, the teachers could enhance the interaction between the teacher and students, share learning resources, perform evaluation, and give feedback in the process of group collaborative learning to promote in-depth group collaborative learning. After class, the teacher used the system to realize the rapid collection and evaluation of students’ works. Therefore, this study aimed to design and develop effective digital AI courses with the support of the technology-assisted classroom equipped with computers, blocks, and other hands-on learning resources.

P.10, lines 372-373: provides the following functions

p.4.148/149 to apply = to use.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments (p. 10, lines 374-375).

P.10, lines 374-375:

The cloud classroom teaching system was used in the whole teaching process of this study.

p.4.143/154 I have never heard of “the sharing of learning resources”. Replace it with: to share learning resources. Therefore, “realize the sharing of” is redundant.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

“the sharing of learning resources” has been replaced by “share learning resources” on p. 10. line 380.

p.6.266–268 This is information for the methodology. Introducing one aspect of your study here (besides the focus on your study) is odd.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We revised this sentence to make it emphasize the focus of this study rather than the methodology (p. 6, lines 260-262).

P.6, lines 260-262:

Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effectiveness of collaborative learning in terms of cultivating primary students’ creative thinking in an AI course.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have corrected our RQ 1 (p. 6, lines 293-294).

P.6, lines 293-294:

1) What is the impact of the four patterns of group cooperative learning on fourth-grade students' creative thinking in the digital AI course?

We have replaced the verb “promote” and revised RQ 2 (p. 7, lines 295-296).

P.7, lines 295-296:

2) Which pattern(s) of group collaborative learning have a positive effect on fourth-grade students' creative thinking?

p.7.305/306 How are those learning experiences determined or measured? How did you reach this conclusion?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

These students were from the same class and took the same AI courses; thus, we proposed that they had similar learning experience of AI courses.

We revised the expression to make it clearer (p. 7, lines 301-302).

P.7, lines 301-302:

The students from the same class had similar previous learning experiences of AI courses.

p.7.309 What was the mean age (and SD)? Moreover, how was gender distributed?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments. The students in the same class and grade were at the similar age of 10 to 11 (p. 7, line 304-305). As for gender, there were 21 males and 16 females among our participants. We added the information about participants’ gender distribution in the manuscript (p. 7, lines 300-301). However, the influence of demographic factors such as gender will be considered in a future study. (p. 18, lines 641-643).

P. 7, line 304-305:

The participants aged from 10 to 11 years old

P.7, lines 300-301: Among them, there were 21 males and 16 females.

P.18, lines 641-643:

Secondly, other factors, such as gender, learning interests, and learning styles, may influence the cultivation of students’ creative thinking in AI courses, which may be considered in future studies.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments. We got the signed informed consent letters from the teacher and the students and sent it to the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Normal University. No other files need to be sent again; the Approval Code is NNU202209001.

p.Table1 Why do you use a square root symbol as a check mark?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The check mark in Table 1 has been corrected.

p.Figure1 Who is the team leader? Does that relate back to the assignment leadership role?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The team leader was assigned by the teacher to take on the leadership role in the group.

We have revised the expression in Figure 1 to avoid confusion.

“Train team leader” has been revised as “Train the assigned leadership roles in groups” (p. 8, line 343).

p.8.339 The Micro-class? This needs more elaboration.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The Micro-class was actually the video about the introduction of collaborative learning. We have added more elaboration of the Micro-class in the manuscript (p. 8. lines 337-340).

P.8. lines 337-340:

The instructor interpreted the concept, form, and strategy of group collaborative learning for all the students in advance by playing a video introducing collaborative learning, "How much do you know about group collaborative learning?"

p.Figure2 Insert the image after the paragraph in rows 360 and 367.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have changed the location of Figure 2 after the paragraph in line 369.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The TTCT-Figure (Form A) developed by Ellis Paul Torrance was adapted for both children and adults. We did not select the adult version (p. 10, lines 387-389).

Furthermore, we adapted the initial version of TTCT-Figure (Form A) rather than the revision. Therefore, the reliability reported by prior study indicated the reliability of this instrument.

P.10, lines 387-389:

TTCT-Figure (Form A), developed by Ellis Paul Torrance in 1966 and adapted to different participants from children to adults [78], was used to comprehensively evaluate the creative thinking level of fourth-grade students [75].

p.10 Hedges g = Hedges g (the “g” needs to be placed in italics). Also revise the Table 2 accordingly.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The g in Hedges g has been written in italics in the manuscript.

p.12.427 The word “non-parametric” is presented in a different font.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments. The method was revised (p. 11, lines 430-431).

P.11, lines 430-431:

A paired sample t test was conducted for the four groups’ pre- and post-test of creative thinking.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The “adjusted sig.” has been corrected as “p”.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Firstly, the comma before the volume number in all the reference has been checked and revised.

Secondly, all the hyphens between the page numbers have been revised as en dashes.

Thirdly, all the capital letter uses of the document titles have been checked to be consistent.

Fourthly, the use of spaces between the initials of the authors have been checked and revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Abstract is still too long. It should be a summary of the work, highlighting the most relevant findings. Attention should be directed to make it more concise.

Go over your manuscript when you write "artificial intelligence" or when you use the abrbeviation. In some cases you can use the abbreviation.

The square root sign in the table is still odd. I would not publish it like this.

"Thus, RQ1 was answered" = redundant. It is unnecessary to state this.

Revise the notes of each table (M, SD, etc. need to be placed in italics there as well). Go over the remainder of your manuscript for this. Moreover, the text in italics from, for example, Hedges' g needs to be revised. Only the "letter" needs to be in italics. Go over your complete manuscript and revise accordingly.

Go over the hyphen use in your reference list (e.g., reference 2).

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Abstract is still too long. It should be a summary of the work, highlighting the most relevant findings. Attention should be directed to make it more concise.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The Abstract has been revised to be more concise and contributed in summarizing the work of this study and highlighting the most relevant findings (P.1, lines 12-36).

P.1, lines 12 to 36: Digital technology plays a unique role in the cultivation of students’ creative thinking which helps them solve poorly structured problems with effective and original solutions. This study applied collaborative learning in a digital technology supported Artificial Intelligence (AI) course and aimed to explore the impact of collaborative learning on fourth-grade students' creative thinking. According to whether a leadership role was assigned by teacher and a final consensus was built in the group, four patterns of collaborative were designed to compare which pattern was more effective for the promotion of students' creative thinking. In total, 37 fourth-grade students taking part in the study were divided into four groups and each group adapted one of four patterns of collaborative learning. The Torrance Creative Thinking Test (TTCT-Figure) was used to test the pre- and post-creative thinking of the four groups of students. A paired sample t test was used to analyze the pre- and post-test of students’ creative thinking to verify whether all four patterns of collaborative learning could im-prove the students’ creative thinking. One way ANOVA was used to analyze the post-test results of the four groups’ creative thinking to determine the differences in four groups students’ creative thinking. The results indicated that the patterns of collaborative learning used by G1, G3, and G4 were effective in improving students’ creative thinking, but the pattern for G2 was not. Moreover, there were significant differences in cultivating students’ creative thinking via AI courses among these four patterns of collaborative learning. G4 students, who had an assigned leadership role and consensus-building, showed the greatest improvement in creative thinking. Specially, without an assigned leader-ship role and consensus-building, students’ flexibility of creative thinking would be improved to a greater extent. Teachers can adapt the findings of this study to consciously train team leaders in the collaborative learning process and guide them to reach consensus to achieve the goal of fostering creative thinking in digital technology supported courses. To be specific, teachers should let students participate in group collaborative learning in a free way to cultivate their flexibility.

Go over your manuscript when you write "artificial intelligence" or when you use the abrbeviation. In some cases you can use the abbreviation.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The uses of "artificial intelligence" and the abbreviation in the manuscript has been checked and revised some term "artificial intelligence" into the abbreviation (P.2, lines 66-67).

P.2, lines 66-67: Therefore, it is worth further exploring how to promote K-12 students' creative thinking through collaborative learning in AI courses.

The square root sign in the table is still odd. I would not publish it like this.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The sign used in Table 1 was not the square root sign rather than the check sign. In order to avoid misleading the reader, we revised the check sign into circle sign ○ in Table 1.

"Thus, RQ1 was answered" = redundant. It is unnecessary to state this.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The sentence that "Thus, RQ1 was answered" has been deleted in the manuscript.

Revise the notes of each table (M, SD, etc. need to be placed in italics there as well). Go over the remainder of your manuscript for this. Moreover, the text in italics from, for example, Hedges' g needs to be revised. Only the "letter" needs to be in italics. Go over your complete manuscript and revise accordingly.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The M, SD and SE in the notes of each table has been revised into italics.

The letter in the Hedges' g has been revised into italics.

The other questions about the font format in the manuscript have been checked and revised.

P.10, lines 397-398: Descriptive statistics were conducted to calculate the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the four groups.

Go over the hyphen use in your reference list (e.g., reference 2).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

All the hyphen uses in the reference have been checked and revised.

The “-” between the page number in the reference list has been revised into “–”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks:

The overall manuscript is neat and written concisely—with relevant information for existing literature. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of the manuscript. The link between your main concepts (i.e., creative thinking and collaborative learning on the one hand, and digital technology on the other) is clear. There are a few minor details that need clarification (see below).

Specific remarks:

p.1.13 I carefully assume that you are talking about high-quality, effective and/or original solutions. Otherwise the solutions need to meet the requirements of these three (i.e., high-quality, effective and original).

p.1.23/24/25 Insert a space after “group x”.

p.1.38 There is a double space before “Creative”.

p.2.52/53 There is no transition between these paragraphs. In a similar vein, the transition between rows 67 and 68 is sudden. In other words, can you create more coherence between the paragraphs (e.g., use a signaling word or repeat a part of the last sentence)?

p.3.99 “some suggestions” = “suggestions” à Otherwise it sounds doubtful.

p.3.120 I would suggest to give a few examples of digital technologies. Also the sentence in rows 135/136 requires this clarification. In addition, you might need to add a footnote clarifying e.g. virtual technologies to avoid conceptual confusion.

p.5.Table1 Insert spaces after “Group x”. In addition, you work with a “-“ instead of the squared root of something. It looks like a check mark, but it is not.

p.throughout I’ve noticed that you use “et al.” in the main text. Normally this is reserved for a source between brackets. I would suggest to replace it with “and colleagues” if it is not placed between brackets.

p.5.222/223 They display ALL characteristics? Or three out of four? This has to be clarified (see also my comment about this in the abstract).

p.7.299/300 “The participants in this study were completely voluntary and explicitly provided their informed consent letter” à You mean the students’ parent(s)/guardian(s)/caregiver(s)?

p.10 There is no Results section? That is merged with the Discussion? That is odd. I would suggest to present the Results separately from the Discussion—as this is common in scientific research. This also allows the reader to only look at the Results first rather than going over the Discussion as well. Oh, this is odd. You have two “Discussion” sections (see page 10 and page 14). I assume now that the first one should be the Results.

p.10.Table2 I am confused about the Table. You use Cohen’s d for the effect size. I would advise using Hedges’ g because it is a corrected effect size. In addition, your SDs between the groups are rather different. If they are significantly different, I would opt for Glass’ delta (due to the significant differences in SD between the groups). Moreover, what do the columns “Cohen’s d” and “effect size” mean? What is the difference? Cohen’s d is an effect size? In addition, the negative values are odd and counter intuitive. I would have set G1 as no x-no y rather than no x-yes y. This would be your “control group” with no manipulation. It is counter intuitive that this group is G2.

p.Table7 The information needs to be presented in italics—in line with the previous Table and presenting statistics (based on a specific referencing format).

p.references Check the use of spaces in your reference list (it is not always consistent). The hyphen between the page numbers need to be replaced by an en dash. In addition, the capital letters use in the titles is not always consistent (sometimes you capitalise each word and sometimes you do not).

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 1:

General remarks:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have revised the minor details existing in our manuscript according to your following specific remarks.

Specific remarks:

p.1.13 I carefully assume that you are talking about high-quality, effective and/or original solutions. Otherwise the solutions need to meet the requirements of these three (i.e., high-quality, effective and original).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This statement was proposed by Mumford and Gustafson who indicated that creative thinking can help students solve poorly structured problems with effective and original solutions (P.1. lines 12-13). The reference is No. 57 as Mumford, M.D.; Gustafson, S.B. Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychol. Bull, 1988, 103, 27-43.

The statement was also described in P.5. lines 240-242.

P.1. lines 12-13:

Creative thinking helps students solve poorly structured problems with effective and original solutions to sustain their future work and life in the digital age.

P.5. lines 240-242:

It has been confirmed that creative thinking allows students to solve complex, ill-defined, or poorly structured problems with high-quality, effective, original solutions in the rapidly changing environment.

p.1.23/24/25 Insert a space after “group x”.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

A space has been inserted after each “group x” (p. 1 lines 24-27).

p.1.38 There is a double space before “Creative”.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The double space before “Creative” has been deleted.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The proper transitions have been added between the paragraphs.

P. lines 63-64: How to cultivate students’ creative thinking via digital AI courses is the focus of our study.
P. lines 81-84: Existing studies involving AI courses have confirmed that they tend to be conducted in the form of collaborative learning, and aim to develop students’ creative thinking by offering them challenging themes and platforms for problem solving in groups.

p.3.99 “some suggestions” = “suggestions” à Otherwise it sounds doubtful.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The “some” before “suggestions” has been deleted.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

An example that digital technologies can promote students’ creative thinking has been added on p. 3 lines 140-143.

3 lines 140-143:

The digital technology has been clarified more clearly on p. 4. lines 165-167.

4 lines 165-167:

Therefore, this study aimed to design and develop effective digital AI courses with the support of the technology-assisted classroom equipped with computers, blocks, and other hands-on learning resources.

p.5.Table1 Insert spaces after “Group x”. In addition, you work with a “-“ instead of the squared root of something. It looks like a check mark, but it is not.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

Spaces have been inserted after “Group x” in Table 1.

“-“ has been revised.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

All the occurrences of “et al.” have been replaced with “and colleagues” in the manuscript.

p.5.222/223 They display ALL characteristics? Or three out of four? This has to be clarified (see also my comment about this in the abstract).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The clearer description of the characteristics of people’ creative thinking has been added (P.6. lines 249-250).

P.6. lines 249-250:

Individuals with high levels of creative thinking would display these four characteristics.

p.7.299/300 “The participants in this study were completely voluntary and explicitly provided their informed consent letter” à You mean the students’ parent(s)/guardian(s)/caregiver(s)?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The informed consent letters were signed by students who participated in this study. Their teacher also signed the informed consent letter. The experiment in the class was anonymous without any personal identified information appearing in the study or the published paper. According to the local rules, the children and the teacher can sign the letters.

A more concrete description has been added on p. 7 lines 324-327.

7 lines 324-327:

All 37 students in this study participated completely voluntarily, and provided their informed consent. Note that according to local rules, it was not necessary to ask for the consent of the students’ parents.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The first Discussion section should be the Results section. We have revised it in our manuscript.

Moreover, what do the columns “Cohen’s d” and “effect size” mean? What is the difference? Cohen’s d is an effect size? In addition, the negative values are odd and counter intuitive. I would have set G1 as no x-no y rather than no x-yes y. This would be your “control group” with no manipulation. It is counter intuitive that this group is G2.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

According to your comment, we have changed the effect size from Cohen’s d to Hedges’ g and Glass’s delta in Table 2 and Table 3.

P. lines 426-429:

Hedges’ g and Glass’s delta were used to calculate the effect sizes which can detect the t-test effect. The value of effect sizes indicated that G1 and G4 had a large effect (Hedges’ g > 1, Glass’s delta > 1), whereas G3 had a medium effect (Hedges’ g > 0.38, Glass’s delta > 0.38).

P.12. lines 443-445:

Specifically, G1 and G4 showed large improvement in fluency and originality (Hedges’ g > 1, Glass’s delta > 1) and G3 showed small improvement (Hedges’ g > 0.38, Glass’s delta > 0.38).

In addition, there is no control group and experimental in this study; instead, G1 and G2 adapted different patterns of group collaborative learning. To avoid being counter intuitive, we changed G1 to no x-no y and G2 io no x-yes y in the manuscript.

P.7. lines 329-330:

Group 1 (G1) adopted the pattern with no assigned leadership role and no consensus-building.

P. lines 332-333:

Group 2 (G2) adopted the pattern with no assigned leadership role but with consensus-building.

p.Table7 The information needs to be presented in italics—in line with the previous Table and presenting statistics (based on a specific referencing format).

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The necessary information in Table 7 has been revised to use italics.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

We have checked and revised the use of spaces in the reference list.

The hyphen between the page numbers has also been replaced by an en dash.

All the titles in the reference list have been revised to use lowercase letters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study of an interventional controlled trial of the impacts of a collaborative program for creative thinking is well-designed and ambitious spanning four groups of intervention. The reviewer has no major concerns with the study. However, some points should be further adressed: -Section 4 should, presumably, be titled ”Results” - there are now, confusingly, two Discussion sections. -What specific aspects of creative thinking is the study targeting? This is hard to pinpoint in the current manuscript and would help to make the paper more impactful. One proxy in the paper seem to be ”unique ideas” - what is meant by this? Could it be exemplified so that we know what creative thinking for primary school pupils is? This would be helpful for the reader and surely for any practitioner that want to use the study. -Also, what types of collaborative work were present in the groups? A new study might be helpful for the authors in formulating this: Saqr & Lopez-Pernas. How CSCL roles emerge, persist, transition, and evolve over time: A four-year longitudinal study. Computers & Eduation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104581 -Furthermore, there seem to be a lack of bridging between the AI content of the course and creative thinking. Why is the subject of AI prone to foster creative thinking in young pupils? Could the results possibly be transfered to any other course, or are there any specific properties of the AI course that matters here? At present, the AI content seem to matter less and the authors should consider if this is something that should be more foregrounded in the study or not, depending on their rationales, results and aim of their research program. Note on phrasing: p5 r 216 "as the highest form of thinking activities” - perhaps this should be toned down, or the authors have to justift why creative thinking is the ”highest form"

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 2:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The first Discussion section should be the Results section. We have revised it in our manuscript.

-What specific aspects of creative thinking is the study targeting? This is hard to pinpoint in the current manuscript and would help to make the paper more impactful. One proxy in the paper seem to be ”unique ideas”

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This study targeted to explore how to cultivate primary students’ creative thinking including originality, flexibility, fluency and elaboration through conducting different patterns of group collaborative learning in AI courses.

This target which made this paper more impactful has been added in the Introduction section (P.3. lines 113-116).

P.3. lines 113-116:

The target of this study was to explore how to cultivate primary students’ creative thinking including originality, flexibility, fluency and elaboration through conducting different patterns of group collaborative learning in AI courses.

- what is meant by this? Could it be exemplified so that we know what creative thinking for primary school pupils is? This would be helpful for the reader and surely for any practitioner that want to use the study.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

We added the example to explain the unique ideas (P. 16. lines 532-534).

16. lines532-534:

That is to say, after the intervention, students could put forward plenty of unique ideas, such as proposing special solutions to solve the problems.

-Also, what types of collaborative work were present in the groups? A new study might be helpful for the authors in formulating this: Saqr & Lopez-Pernas. How CSCL roles emerge, persist, transition, and evolve over time: A four-year longitudinal study. Computers & Eduation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104581

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Saqr and Lopez-Pernas’s study is valuable. However, in this study, the types of collaborative work used consisted of question-and-answer mode, discussion-based mode, operation-based mode, game-based mode, inquiry- learning mode.

The correlative information has been added to section 3.2. Procedure.

P. lines 372-375:

Teachers designed various types of group collaborative learning activities according to the teaching content and objectives, including question-and-answer mode, discussion-based mode, operation-based mode, game-based mode, and inquiry-learning mode.

-Furthermore, there seem to be a lack of bridging between the AI content of the course and creative thinking. Why is the subject of AI prone to foster creative thinking in young pupils?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The evidence of why the AI content of the course was prone to foster students’ creative thinking has been added in the Digital AI courses section.

P.3 lines 133-135:

AI courses, as inclusive, comprehensive and practical courses, can cultivate students’ key competence which would lay a solid foundation for them to adapt to the future [30].

P.3-4. lines 140-151:

It has also been confirmed that students’ creative thinking can be cultivated in digital learning environments. For example, Wheeler and colleagues [33] investigated whether information and communication technology (ICT) had a creative influence on primary students. Karakus and colleagues [34] also discussed that the application of Storyjumper, one of the Web2.0 tools, in the teaching process of a life science course can significantly improve the creative thinking of primary school students. In digital AI courses which help students experience the achievements of AI, understand the principles of AI, and realize the application of AI, students can use digital technology to develop programs and build systems to accurately express themselves, thereby facilitating the development of relevant competencies [30]. Therefore, whether the use of digital technology in AI courses would promote primary students’ creative thinking deserves further exploration.

Could the results possibly be transfered to any other course, or are there any specific properties of the AI course that matters here? At present, the AI content seem to matter less and the authors should consider if this is something that should be more foregrounded in the study or not, depending on their rationales, results and aim of their research program. Note on phrasing: p5 r 216 "as the highest form of thinking activities”

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The AI courses in this study aimed to build up a digital learning environment. The focus of this study was not the content of AI courses but the cultivation of primary students’ creative thinking by conducting group collaborative learning in digital AI courses. Whether the results of this study can also be adapted to other courses which used digital technology could be explored in future.

This view has been supplemented in 6.1 Implication section (P.18. lines 636-638).

P.18. lines 636-638:

Third, whether the findings of this study can also be adapted to other courses which used digital technology to greatly promote students’ creative thinking could be explored in future.

- perhaps this should be toned down, or the authors have to justift why creative thinking is the ”highest form"

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The improper statement that “creative thinking, as the highest form of thinking activities…” has been revised to “creative thinking, as a form of thinking activities…” on p. 5 lines 238-240.

5. lines 238-240:

Creative thinking, as a form of thinking activity, refers to a thinking process in which students solve problems in novel and unique ways based on their experience, and generate new ideas and learning products.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

To mention the paper's major weakness first: 37 fourth-grade students, who are also divided into four groups, are not enough. This study is hopelessly underpowered from the start.

There are other quite fundamental weaknesses: The statistical analyses are inadequate in several respects. Multiple T-tests or the one-way ANOVA do not fit. Non-parametric procedures should have been used and alpha error adjustment should have been applied.

There are also several fundamental flaws in the theoretical section. For example, the literature review separately discusses digital AI courses, collaborative learning, and creative thinking, insufficiently connecting the topics.

I recommend that the next step before considering a resubmission is to increase the sample size and better standardize the treatment conditions. For example, the study reported in the manuscript could then be briefly reported as a pre-study from which one could derive the necessary test power.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 3:

To mention the paper's major weakness first: 37 fourth-grade students, who are also divided into four groups, are not enough. This study is hopelessly underpowered from the start.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

This was an empirical study that was conducted for 7 weeks in an AI course. Although the number of participants was 37, it is enough to reach the conclusions according to other similar empirical studies. For example, Zhao L., Liu X.H., Wang C.H., Su Y.S. Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education. (2022)181, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The multiple-sample non-parametric test used to replace the one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni alpha error adjustment was conducted to compare the difference among the four groups.

P. lines450-452:

A multiple-sample non-parametric test which used the Kruskal-Wallis H Test to indicate significance was conducted for the pre-test of creative thinking of the four experimental groups.

P. lines460-461:

A multiple-sample non-parametric test was also conducted for the post-test of creative thinking for the four groups.

P. lines463-465:

Bonferroni alpha error adjustment was conducted to carry out pairwise comparisons between the four groups. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between G3 and G4 (p < 0.05).

P. lines477-478:

According to the result of Bonferroni alpha error adjustment of four groups’ fluency and originality, there is a significant difference between G3 and G4.

There are also several fundamental flaws in the theoretical section. For example, the literature review separately discusses digital AI courses, collaborative learning, and creative thinking, insufficiently connecting the topics.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

Although the literature review section is titled Digital AI Courses, Collaborative Learning, and Creative Thinking respectively, we believe that the content of each section was sufficiently connected.

To make these sections seem more relevant to the topics, a summarizing statement has been added at the end of each section.

At the end of 2.1 Digital AI Courses, on P. 4. lines 165-167:

At the end of 2.2 Collaborative learning, on P. 5 lines 234-236:

Therefore, this study applied four patterns of group collaborative learning in an AI course, and further explored the effects of these four patterns on students’ creative thinking, and their differences.

In Section 2.3, on P. 6 lines 259-260:

Therefore, how to foster students’ creative thinking in AI education deserves further exploration.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

Although the number of participants was 37, it is enough to reach the conclusions according to other similar empirical studies. Standardizing the treatment conditions is not necessary for all studies. For example, Zhao L., Liu X.H., Wang C.H., Su Y.S. Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education. (2022)181, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study holds some practical significance for teachers and could be published if some organization issues are dealt with to improve the readability of the paper. I feel the abstract probably needs to be reworked a bit to make sure that it's clear what the findings are and how they are useful to teachers. Besides that, there are parts of the literature review that should be moved to the methods. Also, I found that some of the rationale or claims for significance of the study in the introduction are not written in a direct way and need some revision. I provide these critical comments only so that the authors can improve their manuscript to get it ready for publication. Below I detail the minimal points that should be considered when revising the manuscript. These mostly do with the abstract, introduction, and literature review.

Abstract

"The paired sample" change to "A paired sample".
The abstract is unclear what data was analysed with the t test.

"One-way ANOVA" change to "A one-way ANOVA..."
The abstract is unclear what data was analysed with the ANOVA.

"had differences"? unclear what this means.

It is better for you to tell in the abstract what the implications and suggestions are for teachers instead of saying that there are some implications and suggestions but not sharing them with the readers. This is important so that readers can decide if they want to read your paper or not.

Introduction

What do the authors mean by digital education? It is unclear from the context of the paper. Could you define it?

How do AI courses contribute to cultivating students' creative thinking? Could you state it specifically?

I am unsure of your rationale. For the sentence starting with "All of these programs..." until the the end of the paragraph. I am not sure I get your point. I keep re-reading it but not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean all of the previous studies on creative thinking have emphasised collaboration among students? ...ok but not sure I understand why it means digital AI courses should be discussed. I think maybe you need to state something more directly that you are trying to get across. I tried to figure out what you were trying to say but I just couldn't get it. I hope you can help clarify this point.

promote their deeper cognition? Could promote deeper thinking? could promote deeper depth of processing?

To eliminate this gap? to fill this gap?

The study doesn't design but the researchers did something...I wouldn't use the word design. I don't think you design four patterns but you might assign? As you have not mentioned this clearly above it's a big unsettling to just see these four here. It would be better for you to touch upon them earlier in the paper at east so we know what they are when we get to this point.

Literature Review

The paragraph starting with "Digital technology and AI are an important basis" is under cited. If this is something to do with the procedures of the study, it should be moved out of the literature review and to a more appropriate place. If you want to discuss certain issues of why certain support should be present in an AI class this should be done with support from the literature.

"Recently, plenty of studies have explored the effectiveness of different types of collaborative learning in different contexts of education" - but you only cite one? Cite other relevant ones, even those you discuss later on. Or indicate you are only citing one example (e.g.,)

Again, I find that in the paragraph "In order to realise effective collaborative learning" that there is some information that should probably go in the methods section and not in the literature review. If you are talking about the methods that should be in the methods...not jumping back and forth in different sections.

Research Questions

Consider revising them as they are just Yes/No questions that don't require much discussion. Instead it should be Which... or What ...

Section 4. Discussion is actually the Results. So I would suggest you rename it as Results. You have a section 5 that is Discussion. So you can't have two sections with the same name.

These were children. How did you obtain their parents' informed consent? You had better report which ethics review approved the study.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Many thanks and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoyong Hu, Yue Liu, Jie Huang, Su Mu

Reviewer 4:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The abstract has been revised to record the findings of this study and the usefulness to teachers more clearly.

P. lines 37-40:

Therefore, in group collaborative learning, assigning group leaders and guiding students to form a consensus can better help students improve their creative thinking. Specifically, without an assigned leadership role and consensus-building, students’ flexibility would be improved to a greater extent.

P.1-2. lines 43-45:

To be specific, teachers can strengthen the cultivation of group leaders and consciously guide student groups to reach a consensus at the end of the discussion when using group collaborative learning.

Besides that, there are parts of the literature review that should be moved to the methods.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

Some information in the literature review section has been moved to the Methods section.

P. lines 329-342:

The group information for the four experimental groups is shown in Table 1. Group 1 (G1) adopted the pattern with no assigned leadership role and no consensus-building; in order to complete the task, the group members took turns presenting their views in discussion, and there was a lack of cooperation and interaction. Group 2 (G2) adopted the pattern with no assigned leadership role but with consensus-building; group members were required to present their views and conduct consultations to reach consensus according to the task requirements. Group 3 (G3) adopted the pattern with an assigned leadership role but without consensus-building; the leader in the group issued instructions to urge the group members to complete the discussion, but there was a lack of interaction and equality. Group 4 (G4) adopted the pattern with an assigned leadership role and consensus-building; the leader, who was more familiar with the learning content, put forward questions to ensure that other members participated in interaction, understanding, and consensus, then group members collaborated to complete the operation.

Also, I found that some of the rationale or claims for significance of the study in the introduction are not written in a direct way and need some revision.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The Introduction section about the rationale or claims for significance of the study has been revised (P.2. lines 76-80; P.3. lines 107-109).

P.2. lines 76-80:

All of these prior programs emphasized that collaborative learning played a major role in the development of students’ creative thinking. Therefore, studies on whether utilizing collaborative learning approaches can develop primary school students’ creative thinking in digital AI courses should be discussed.

P.3. lines 107-109:

However, few studies have explored whether an assigned leadership role and consensus building in collaborative learning have an effect on group students' creative thinking in AI courses.

I provide these critical comments only so that the authors can improve their manuscript to get it ready for publication. Below I detail the minimal points that should be considered when revising the manuscript. These mostly do with the abstract, introduction, and literature review.

Abstract

"The paired sample" change to "A paired sample".

The abstract is unclear what data was analysed with the t test.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

All the occurrences of "The paired sample" have been changed to "A paired sample".

A description of what data were analyzed with the t test has been added in the abstract.

P. lines 28-31:

A paired sample t test was used to analyze the pre-test and post-test of students’ creative thinking to verify whether all four patterns of collaborative learning could improve the students’ creative thinking.

"One-way ANOVA" change to "A one-way ANOVA..."

The abstract is unclear what data was analysed with the ANOVA.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

According to the comment of reviewer 2, One-way ANOVA has been changed to the Multiple-sample non-parametric test.

A description of what data were analyzed with the Multiple-sample non-parametric test has been added in the abstract.

P. lines31-32:

A multiple-sample non-parametric test was used to analyze the post-test results of the four groups’ creative thinking to determine differences in their creative thinking.

"had differences"? unclear what this means.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

"had differences" has been revised to: “Moreover, there are significant differences in cultivating students’ creative thinking via AI courses among different patterns of collaborative learning.” on P. 1. lines 34 to 36.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

More concrete implications and suggestions for teachers have been added to the abstract.

1-2. lines 43-45:

Introduction

What do the authors mean by digital education? It is unclear from the context of the paper. Could you define it?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The definition of digital education has been added on P.2. lines 51-53.

2. lines 51-53:

Digital education refers to face-to-face, hybrid, and entirely online learning efforts, as well as attempts to harness digital technology to build teaching and learning environments [1].

How do AI courses contribute to cultivating students' creative thinking? Could you state it specifically?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The evidence of how AI courses contribute to cultivating students' creative thinking has been added (P. 3-4. lines 140-151).

3-4. lines 140-151:

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The sentences starting with "All of these programs..." aimed to explain that prior studies emphasized that collaborative learning played a major role in the development of students’ creative thinking. Based on the first and second paragraphs of the Introduction section, we proposed that cultivating students’ creative thinking via collaborative learning in digital AI courses deserved to be explored.

To make the aim and innovativeness of this study clearer, we have revised the sentences on P. 2 lines 73-80.

2. lines 73-80:

Different programs which effectively promote students’ creative thinking have been proposed in prior studies, including the 5-I training program [11], divergent thinking training [12] and the doodle-book program named Creative Doodle: The Adventures of Dragonfly Grazka [13]. All of these prior programs emphasized that collaborative learning played a major role in the development of students’ creative thinking. Therefore, studies on whether utilizing collaborative learning approaches can develop primary school students’ creative thinking in digital AI courses should be discussed.

promote their deeper cognition? Could promote deeper thinking? could promote deeper depth of processing?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment. The sentences have been revised (P.2. lines 85-87).

P. line 85-87:

The collaborative learning approach allows students to do some group activities like collective discussion and brainstorming which would promote their development of cognition.

To eliminate this gap? to fill this gap?

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

On P. 3. line 109: “to eliminate this gap” has been revised to “to fill this gap”.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The word design has been replaced with “divide into.” (P. 3. lines 109-111).

P. lines 109-111:

To fill this gap, in this study we divided students into four patterns of group collaborative learning based on two dimensions: assigned leadership role and consensus building, in an AI course.

Literature Review

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The statement that Digital technology and AI are an important basis is not appropriate. Thus, we revised it on P. 4. lines 152-153.

P.4.lines 152-153:

Digital technology was used in this study to support the implementation of digital education in an AI course.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The other relevant studies have been added (P. 4. line 175-177).

P. line 175-177:

Recently, plenty of studies have explored the effectiveness of different types of collaborative learning in different contexts of education [40,41,42,43].

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

Some information in the Literature Review section has been moved to the Methods section (P. 7 lines 329-342).

P.7 lines 329-342:

Research Questions

Consider revising them as they are just Yes/No questions that don't require much discussion. Instead it should be Which... or What ...

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The second research question has been revised (P. 7. lines 313-314)：

7lines 313-314:

Which pattern(s) of group collaborative learning can promote fourth-grade students' creative thinking?

Section 4. Discussion is actually the Results. So I would suggest you rename it as Results. You have a section 5 that is Discussion. So you can't have two sections with the same name.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comment.

The first Discussion section should be the Results section. We have revised it in our manuscript.

These were children. How did you obtain their parents' informed consent? You had better report which ethics review approved the study.

Reply:

Thank you very much for your comments.

The informed consent letters were signed by students who participated in this study rather than their parents. Their teacher also signed the informed consent letter. The experiment in the class was anonymous without any personal identified information appeared in the study or the published paper. According to the local rules, the children and the teacher can sign the letters. With the signed informed consent letters, the experiment can be carried out without any ethics review approval according to the Ethics Committee of South China Normal University.

The more concrete description has been added on P.7. lines 324-327.

P.7. lines 324-327:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is still methodologically inadequate, the statistical analyses deeply flawed, and the study fundamentally misconstrued.

As I already wrote, the study presented here can possibly be used as a preliminary study. In the following main study, however, fundamental errors would have to be corrected. I have some of them listed in my first review.

The answers given and modifications made by the authors to my criticisms are all insufficient.

An example of an inadequate response: It was criticized that a study of fewer than 10 subjects per treatment group is hopelessly underpowered. The publication cited by the authors as evidence that meaningful studies are possible with such small samples is also completely misleading. The cited study by Zhao, Liu, Wang, and Su (2022) had twice as many subjects and only two training groups instead of four. Thus, the study with the smallest number of participants that the authors could find still had four times the number of participants per condition.

The statistical analyses are still completely unsatisfactory and do not meet standards. I even have to say quite frankly that for me now the scientific integrity of the authors is questionable. For example, the significance level was allegedly 0.05 even after the Bonfererroni adjustment, which cannot be correct.

Article Menu

The Effects of Different Patterns of Group Collaborative Learning on Fourth-Grade Students’ Creative Thinking in a Digital Artificial Intelligence Course

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI