Fostering AI Literacy in Elementary Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM) Education in the Age of Generative AI

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The rapid improvement of AI technologies will have both positive and negative impacts on society. This paper presents research on the development of new models of AI literacy and principles for AI literacy development in the context of STEAM skill development in elementary school students. A 3-session classroom intervention was implemented in an Indonesian elementary school classroom. The findings included a network map with clusters of interdependent elements of learner experiences, which were translated into a set of design moves for developing AI literacy among elementary school students.

Dear authors, the topic of your manuscript is interesting, however it lacks form/level of a scientific journal with IF of 3.9 and it needs to be significantly improved.

There seems to be an error in the affiliation and some other texts outside the body of the manuscript. Also, the abstract is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. The abstract could be more specific about the research questions and findings. For example, it could state that the research aimed to develop a new model of AI literacy and principles for AI literacy development in the context of STEAM skill development in elementary school students. It could also state that the findings included a network map with clusters of interdependent elements of learner experiences, which were translated into a set of design moves for developing AI literacy among elementary school students. 

Elaborate more on the descriptions of the figures one and two. Also improve the quality of the Pictures.

The whole paper could be more concise – here are some suggestions to the Discussion chapter:

The discussion section is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. For example, the first paragraph could be shortened to "This section discusses the design principles for developing AI literacy in elementary school students. The principles are based on the findings of the study and the theoretical foundations of learning."

The discussion could be more specific by providing more examples of how the design principles were implemented in the study. For example, the paragraph about scaffolding could be rewritten to state that "The instructor asked questions that guided students towards solutions, such as 'What do you think would happen if you changed this value?' or 'Can you think of another way to solve this problem?'"

The discussion could be also more concise by avoiding repetition and by using more active voice. For example, the sentence "These unique and supportive interactions will serve as the foundation for constructing a safe and comfortable learning environment" could be rewritten as "The unique and supportive interactions that were created in the study served as the foundation for a safe and comfortable learning environment."

You have correctly stated that the generative capabilities of AI tools are fundamentally altering creative processes, which leads to a reimagining of creativity across many sectors of society including education. Include some references, for example consider paper proving that generative AI is altering even university education in dentistry forcing them to update their curriculums - https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020150 - Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Dental Education: A Review and Guide for Curriculum Update.

And here are some suggestions on how to improve the Conclusion chapter of the paper:

The conclusion is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. For example, the first sentence could be shortened to "The study found that a design-based research approach grounded in learning theories was effective in developing AI literacy in elementary school students."

The conclusion could be more specific about the implications of the findings. For example, it could state that the findings suggest that AI literacy should be integrated into STEAM education, that students do not need to have programming skills to interact effectively with AI technologies, and that early exposure to AI can help children develop the skills they need to use AI ethically.

The conclusion could be more concise by avoiding repetition and by using more active voice. For example, the sentence "These unique interactions empowered students’ creativity and allowed them to learn by making things rather than merely remembering things" could be rewritten as "These interactions empowered students to be creative and to learn by doing."

Here is a suggested revision of the conclusion:

Conclusion

This study found that a design-based research approach grounded in learning theories was effective in developing AI literacy in elementary school students. The findings suggest that AI literacy should be integrated into STEAM education, that students do not need to have programming skills to interact effectively with AI technologies, and that early exposure to AI can help children develop the skills they need to use AI ethically.

Future research could expand the demographic scope of this study and include long-term follow-ups to understand the impact of AI literacy improvements over time.

 

can be improved

Author Response

Point 1. Reviewer’s comment:

There seems to be an error in the affiliation and some other texts outside the body of the manuscript.

Authors’ response:

I appreciate your attention to the details in the manuscript, particularly regarding the affiliation. I understand the concerns, but I included two affiliations under my name as it is necessary for my career. I am part of both institutions, and acknowledging both affiliations is essential in this context

Point 2. Reviewer’s comment:

Also, the abstract is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. The abstract could be more specific about the research questions and findings. For example, it could state that the research aimed to develop a new model of AI literacy and principles for AI literacy development in the context of STEAM skill development in elementary school students. It could also state that the findings included a network map with clusters of interdependent elements of learner experiences, which were translated into a set of design moves for developing AI literacy among elementary school students.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comment on the abstract, emphasizing the need to focus more on the research questions and findings. Here is the revised abstract we have made:

The advancement of generative AI technologies underscores the need for AI literacy, particularly in Southeast Asia's elementary Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM) education. This study explores the development of AI literacy principles for elementary students. Utilizing existing AI literacy models, a 3-session classroom intervention was implemented in an Indonesian school, grounded in constructivist, constructionist, and transformative learning theories. Through design-based research (DBR) and network analysis of reflection papers (n=77), the intervention was evaluated and redesigned. Findings revealed clusters of interdependent elements of learner experiences, categorized into successes, struggles, and alignments with learning theories. These were translated into design moves for future intervention iterations, forming design principles for AI literacy development. The study contributes insights into optimizing the positive effects and minimizing the negative impacts of AI in education.

Point 3. Reviewer’s comment:

Elaborate more on the descriptions of the figures one and two. Also improve the quality of the Pictures.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for drawing attention to the need for more detailed descriptions of figures one and two, and for noting the quality of the images. We have taken your feedback into account and added more descriptions to both figures to provide clearer context and understanding. For Figure 1 we make emphasize on collaboration on unplugged activity, whereas in Figure 2 we emphasize collaboration with AI. Additionally, we have adjusted the quality of the images to the best of our ability to ensure they are presented in a more visually appealing manner. We hope these improvements address your concerns. Thank you for your guidance in enhancing this aspect of our manuscript.

Point 4. Reviewer’s comment:

The whole paper could be more concise – here are some suggestions to the Discussion chapter: The discussion section is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. For example, the first paragraph could be shortened to "This section discusses the design principles for developing AI literacy in elementary school students. The principles are based on the findings of the study and the theoretical foundations of learning."

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your thoughtful comment on the section discussing the design principles for AI literacy development. We appreciate your insight, and in response, we have made revisions to the first paragraph to make it more concise as follows: "This section discusses the design principles for developing AI literacy in elementary students, grounded in the study findings and learning theories underpinning the intervention. The results are interpreted in relation to literature, and strengths, limitations, contributions, and future directions are described." We hope this revision aligns with your recommendations.

Point 5. Reviewer’s comment:

The discussion could be more specific by providing more examples of how the design principles were implemented in the study. For example, the paragraph about scaffolding could be rewritten to state that "The instructor asked questions that guided students towards solutions, such as 'What do you think would happen if you changed this value?' or 'Can you think of another way to solve this problem?'

Authors’ response:

Thank you for the suggestion to include more specific examples of how the design principles were implemented. To address this, we have added the following example to the paragraph on scaffolding in the Discussion:

"For instance, when students struggled with failures in training the AI model during a Teachable Machine activity, the instructor provided tailored scaffolding by asking guiding questions such as “What do you think would happen if you removed any blurry pictures and replaced them with better quality photos?” and “Could you check if there is too much similarity between categories?” This enabled students to troubleshoot issues and incrementally build the skills needed to train an effective model."

This provides a concrete illustration of how the instructor used strategic questions to scaffold students' learning and problem-solving abilities within their zone of proximal development.

Point 6. Reviewer’s comment:

The discussion could be also more concise by avoiding repetition and by using more active voice. For example, the sentence "These unique and supportive interactions will serve as the foundation for constructing a safe and comfortable learning environment" could be rewritten as "The unique and supportive interactions that were created in the study served as the foundation for a safe and comfortable learning environment.

Authors’ response:
We appreciate your specific example, and we have made the changes based on your suggestion.

Point 7. Reviewer’s comment:

You have correctly stated that the generative capabilities of AI tools are fundamentally altering creative processes, which leads to a reimagining of creativity across many sectors of society including education. Include some references, for example consider paper proving that generative AI is altering even university education in dentistry forcing them to update their curriculums - https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020150 - Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Dental Education: A Review and Guide for Curriculum Update.

Authors’ response:

We appreciate you taking the time to suggest a relevant source regarding the impacts of generative AI on education. Upon reviewing the paper, we agree it provides valuable insights into how AI is impacting higher education settings. However, since our paper is focused specifically on elementary school students, we feel directly applying findings from university contexts could be inappropriate. We want to be careful not to overgeneralize evidence to younger student populations without proper support. Therefore, we have decided to rephrase the statement as our perspective rather than portraying it as a factual claim. The revised statement reads: "We believe that the generative capabilities of these AI tools are fundamentally altering creative processes, leading to a reimagining of creativity across many sectors of society including education."

Point 8. Reviewer’s comment:

The conclusion is a bit long and could be shortened by removing some of the details. For example, the first sentence could be shortened to "The study found that a design-based research approach grounded in learning theories was effective in developing AI literacy in elementary school students." The conclusion could be more specific about the implications of the findings. For example, it could state that the findings suggest that AI literacy should be integrated into STEAM education, that students do not need to have programming skills to interact effectively with AI technologies, and that early exposure to AI can help children develop the skills they need to use AI ethically. The conclusion could be more concise by avoiding repetition and by using more active voice. For example, the sentence "These unique interactions empowered students’ creativity and allowed them to learn by making things rather than merely remembering things" could be rewritten as "These interactions empowered students to be creative and to learn by doing. "Here is a suggested revision of the conclusion: This study found that a design-based research approach grounded in learning theories was effective in developing AI literacy in elementary school students. The findings suggest that AI literacy should be integrated into STEAM education, that students do not need to have programming skills to interact effectively with AI technologies, and that early exposure to AI can help children develop the skills they need to use AI ethically. Future research could expand the demographic scope of this study and include long-term follow-ups to understand the impact of AI

literacy improvements over time.”

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comprehensive feedback on the conclusion section of our manuscript. We truly appreciate your detailed suggestions for making the conclusion more concise and specific, and for pointing out areas where the active voice could be employed more effectively. Your insights have been invaluable in guiding our revisions. In response, we have shortened the conclusion to the following:

“The study found that meaningful collaboration and the use of analogies and scaffolding support grade 5 students in understanding AI concepts without needing programming skills, thereby supporting the integration of AI literacy into broader STEAM education and highlighting students' creativity and awareness of AI's ethical implications. Grounding AI literacy education in theories like cognitive constructivism, social constructivism, constructionism, and transformative learning can create an optimal learning environment. Techniques like scaffolding and analogies enhance engagement, while integrating AI with traditional STEAM subjects boosts literacy and real-world application [20–23; 16]. Fostering AI literacy from an early age prepares children for an AI-empowered future, with early exposure contributing to responsible and ethical use, potentially mitigating ethical issues associated with AI [18]. This study offers a tentative set of design principles for incorporating AI literacy in elementary schools, paving the way for future research and practice. Expanding the demographic scope and including long-term studies could deepen understanding of AI literacy development strategies’ impact over time.”

Reviewer 2 Report

1 At the end of the introduction you should ad a short overview of the article (line 80).

2 In line 236 schools is used, while in line 241 you use school. Make this equal.

3 In line 377 you used seson where apparently session is meant.

In section 4 the reasons behind the adaptations of the moves are not everwhare presented. Please, ad them where they are not mentioned.

 

 

Author Response

Point 1. Reviewer’s comment:

At the end of the introduction, you should add a short overview of the article (line 80).

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added the overview at the end of the introduction as follows:

This study implemented a design-based research approach explained in the Methodology section to develop and iteratively refine an AI literacy intervention for elementary students in Indonesia. Grounded in learning theories described in the Literature Review section, the intervention (also described in the Methodology section) utilized student reflections and network analysis to derive design principles for AI literacy education suited to young learners. In the Findings section we highlight the importance of social learning, hands-on activities, and appropriate scaffolding to make AI concepts accessible and meaningful. The Discussion section suggests that this research provides valuable direction for integrating AI literacy into elementary STEAM education through pedagogically sound methods tailored to children’s learning needs. Details of the study design, methods, and outcomes are presented in the sections that follow.

Point 2. Reviewer’s comment:

In line 236 schools is used, while in line 241 you use school. Make this equal

Authors’ response:

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. We have addressed the issue to ensure clarity as follows:

The study was conducted in Salatiga, Central Java Province, Indonesia, and involved two public schools centrally located in the city. The first school was the site for iterations 1-3, with a total of 55 fifth-grade primary school students participating. The second school was involved in iteration 4, where 25 fifth-grade primary school students participated. Both schools had parental consent for the students involved. According to teacher interviews, the students in both schools predominantly come from middle-low-income families. While almost all students have access to smartphones and the internet, the second school additionally provided one computer per student with internet access. It should be noted that the students' computer literacy is at a beginner level, and although they had no prior knowledge of AI, they were all familiar with platforms like YouTube and the Google search engine.

Point 3. Reviewer’s comment:

In line 377 you used seson where apparently session is mean.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for finding the spelling error in the paper. We changed the word "seson" to "session."

Point 4. Reviewer’s comment:

In section 4 the reasons behind the adaptations of the moves are not everywhere presented. Please, ad them where they are not mentioned.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for the feedback regarding explaining the rationale behind the design moves. To address this, we have added a paragraph in the Methodology section (3.2 Intervention design and implementation) that clearly states the purpose and methodology behind creating the design moves:

3.2. Intervention design and implementation

The goal of the intervention was to refine best practice and strategies to improve primary school students' AI literacy by using principles of AI literacy from the literature. The design principles were derived from learning theories mentioned in the literature review section. This study focuses on analysis of data from the fourth iteration. However, to help the reader better understand the fourth iteration, we will first describe each of the previous iterations and the design moves resulting from analysis of those iterations. The design moves were constructed to leverage the principles and strengths in order to systematically resolve the struggles, based on an analysis of the relationships between struggles, successes, and theories evident in the learning experience network map. This exemplifies an evidence-based approach to refining the intervention by allowing the data on student learning experiences to guide incremental improvements grounded in theory.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study the authors present an artificial intelligence literacy development intervention for fifth grade students in a primary school in Indonesia.

The subject is extremely important and fills a gap in research on digital literacy and more specifically in relation to new technologies based on AI. I consider that the approach is innovative and shows an interesting approach to address the problem.

Methodologically, the research work follows a design-based approach and follows different learning theories (cognitive constructivism, social constructivism, constructionism and transformative learning theory). It's qualitative and well-defined.

The conclusions are consistent with the research evidence.

The main findings revealed the importance of meaningful student-student and student-IA collaboration. I agree with the authors that the study provides a fundamental blueprint for embedding AI literacy in primary school settings.

References used are current and relevant.

In general, this is an interesting educational research paper and a well-written and structured article.

Congratulation

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

The subject is extremely important and fills a gap in research on digital literacy and more specifically in relation to new technologies based on AI. I consider that the approach is innovative and shows an interesting approach to address the problem. Methodologically, the research work follows a design-based approach and follows different learning theories (cognitive constructivism, social constructivism, constructionism and transformative learning theory). It's qualitative and well-defined. The conclusions are consistent with the research evidence. The main findings revealed the importance of meaningful student-student and student-IA collaboration. I agree with the authors that the study provides a fundamental blueprint for embedding AI literacy in primary school settings. References used are current and relevant. In general, this is an interesting educational research paper and a well-written and structured article. Congratulation

Authors’ response:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our research paper. We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment of the importance of the subject and your positive remarks on our approach, methodology, and conclusions. Your detailed review not only affirms our efforts but also inspires us to continue contributing to the field of AI literacy in education. We are grateful for your time and expertise in evaluating our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have implemented all my remarks that were important. The manuscript is suitable for publication.

is fine

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your constructive feedback during the review process, and we appreciate your approval for publication of the manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in elevating the quality of our work.

Best regards,

Stefanus