Romero. M, From Consumption to Co-Creation

Abstract
As AI systems become more integrated into society, the relationship between humans and AI is shifting from simple automation to co-creative collaboration. This evolution is particularly important in education, where human intuition and imagination can combine with AI’s computational power to enable innovative forms of learning and teaching. This study is grounded in the # ppAI6 model, a framework that describes six levels of creative engagement with AI in educational contexts, ranging from passive consumption to active, participatory co-creation of knowledge. The model highlights progression from initial interactions with AI tools to transformative educational experiences that involve deep collaboration between humans and AI. In this study, we explore how educators and learners can engage in deeper, more transformative interactions with AI technologies. The # ppAI6 model categorizes these levels of engagement as follows: level 1 involves passive consumption of AI-generated content, while level 6 represents expansive, participatory co-creation of knowledge. This model provides a lens through which we investigate how educational tools and practices can move beyond basic interactions to foster higher-order creativity. We conducted a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting the levels of creative engagement with AI tools in education. This review synthesizes existing literature on various levels of engagement, such as interactive consumption through Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), and shifts focus to the exploration and design of higher-order forms of creative engagement.

Synthesis
The framework suggested byRomero goes from Level 1 to Level 5, ranging from passive consumption at level 1 to transformative collaboration, though loosely defining what construes as creativity through the entirety of the meta-analyses. Through their findings and reviews, Romero concludes that the current use of GenAI is focused on adaptive support and content delivery, rather than fostering higher-order creative collaboration. This mismatch between potential and use currently undermines GenAI's potentiality in the educational space. Though pseudo-autonomous activities such as personalization and tools for automation are offered as effective scaffolding for learners, there is a marked lack of cultivation of knowledge-building activity or stretching learning processes envisioned at the higher levels of the framework. Romero also suggests that there might be broader systemic issues at play.

Future research should aim to investigate how AI can be leveraged to facilitate more participatory forms of engagement, wherein learners and teachers collaborate to design, solve, and innovate. (Romero, p. 14)

Ultimately, due to the limitations of the methodology, the paper does not define nor push any boundaries in regards to AI adoption for "creatives" or creative frameworks. The paper also does not address the recursive or dialogic nature of creativity nor the process-oriented learning required to develop "routine" that could possibly be automated by AI. Moreover, though Romero, in passing human "oversight" as a critical aspect of pushing AI's potentiality for creative collaboration, she does not define the parameters, nor establish whose epistemological responsibility it would be to ensure this form of governance
a. exists and b. is able to affect pedagogical practice and epistemological frameworks in the manner though which oversight might be effective.

These limitations severely stunt the generalizability of this paper.