A Black Mirror of Bright Ideas: Could Media Educate towards Positive Creativity?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Compared to the first version of the text, which I also had the opportunity to review, the authors have made many changes. They enriched the bibliography and put the narrative in order. Despite remaining in the form of an essay, the text has a more scientific character. It reads much better. I congratulate the Authors on the work done.
Author Response
We are happy that our effort has led to a noticeable increase in the quality of our manuscript and thank the Reviewer for the previous suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the improvement. The quality and clarity of the manuscript have increased.
The discussion occurs only on lines 292-305, which are two paragraphs. The discussion section needs to be significantly strengthened to clarify the results. There are dozens of studies on similar topics that would form a suitable discussion framework (I list four, none of which I know the author, to avoid ethical conflict). The absence of a theoretical grasp of the study continues to be an obstacle to the publication of the submitted manuscript. I ask for a whole separate discussion section and recommend separating it from the conclusion, which summarises the content of the findings on lines 306-333.
Examples of studies possible (not necessary, the wide choice is, of course, up to the study authors - it is only illustrative examples) for the discussion section. Please work primarily with current sources (2019-present).:
Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 137, 104-113.
Avcı, Ü., & Ergün, E. (2022). Online students’ LMS activities and their effect on engagement, information literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 71-84.
Hewson, E. R. (2018). Students’ emotional engagement, motivation and behaviour over the life of an online course: Reflections on two market research case studies. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(10).
Muir, T., Milthorpe, N., Stone, C., Dyment, J., Freeman, E., & Hopwood, B. (2019). Chronicling engagement: Students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262-277.
Author Response
We appreciate the feedback and literature suggestions regarding potential perspectives and frameworks for the discussion section. We have thoroughly revised the discussion, but also preceding sections of the manuscript to better incorporate some of the suggested, as well as additional literature and want to refer to the tracked-changes document in this regard. Understand that improving the discussion by means of theoretical embeddedness will benefit the manuscript as a whole. We argue that the manuscript, and the discussion, in particular, benefitted from incorporating the suggested literature, as well as a clearer distinction between the discussion and summary sections. We would like to note that the specific lines denoted by the Reviewer must have been somewhat mistaken by us looking at a differently formatted version of the manuscript, thus we cannot directly respond to the comments regarding these specific lines. We still hope that the Reviewer agrees that the manuscript has, again, significantly improved in quality.
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall manuscript displays potential by merging relevant research areas to a meaningful whole. Due to the complexity of the concepts, I would advise to go over your introduction. In particular, your main concepts needs clarification. Sometimes this requires adding additional information, but sometimes it can be solved by adding a footnote. Disentangling this conceptual confusion will improve the overall quality of your work. There are some minor punctuation issues (see below). Overall, the contribution of your work is significant.
Author Response
The overall manuscript displays potential by merging relevant research areas to a meaningful whole. Due to the complexity of the concepts, I would advise to go over your introduction. In particular, your main concepts needs clarification. Sometimes this requires adding additional information, but sometimes it can be solved by adding a footnote. Disentangling this conceptual confusion will improve the overall quality of your work. There are some minor punctuation issues (see below). Overall, the contribution of your work is significant.
Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback. We applied all recommendations point by point, and we described all changes below. We hope that current version of the manuscript is clearer and neater.
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 displays potential by merging relevant research areas to a meaningful whole. Due to the complexity of the concepts, I would advise to go over your introduction. In particular, your main concepts needs clarification. Sometimes this requires adding additional information, but sometimes it can be solved by adding a footnote. Disentangling this conceptual confusion will improve the overall quality of your work. There are some minor punctuation issues (see below). Overall, the contribution of your work is significant.
Reply: We have revised the entire text following the instructions. We are grateful for the very detailed recommendations on what needs to be improved. The exact indications facilitated the revision process.
Specific remarks:
p.1.9/10 En dashes are incorrect (these should be replaced by em dashes). Later on in the abstract, you have inserted an en dash again (instead of an em dash).
Reply: Thank you for this information. As non-native speakers, differentiating the correct use of en- and em-dashes, respectively, proves to be quite a challenge. Nonetheless, we hope that these issues have now been resolved.
p.1.11 “...development of creativity”→In what? And do you refer to positive creativity (see title)? At this point, it is a bit confusing.Reply: We have tried to specify which kind of development we meant.
p.1.21 “What is more”→I do not understand what you mean with this. To what does it refer?
Reply: We have deleted this phrase, as we felt it is redundant.
p.1.28 “...good reception and viewer appreciation...” →Indicated by what?
Reply: We have removed the citation of Roth & Koenitz (2019), as we no longer deem it relevant for the specific section of the manuscript.
p.1.36 Is social media the only example here? If not, can you list another example?
Reply: We have extended the listed examples to feature two areas that are later tackled in the manuscript: video games and virtual reality.
p.1.39 “It does not seem far-fetched...”→Subjective labeling and informal. Moreover, this part does not add anything relevant to the message you want to convey.
Reply: We have tried to be both more concise and clear in the opening statement on the bottom of p1 and believe that the quality of this part has thus improved.
p.1.40 Avoid intensifiers such as “huge”. Similar to subjective labeling, they do not add anything to your message.
Reply: We have changed “huge” to “significant” and revised the manuscript focusing on (avoidance of) intensifiers.
p.1.43 Use an em dash instead of an en dash.
Reply: We changed the dash in line 43.
p.2.45 Covid-19 is phrased differently here compared to the one of page 7 (row 350). Please make it consistent throughout your work.
Reply: Thank you for spotting this incessance. According to the Modern Language Association recommendations we have referred to the current pandemic as “COVID-19”.
p.2.46 En dash should be an em dash.
Reply: We changed the dash in line 46.
p.2.50 “People” should not be with a capital letter.
Replay: According to APA style, If the clause following the colon is a complete sentence, it begins with a capital letter. As we find this to be the case in this specific line, we have decided to leave it as it is, but are happy to change to lowercase if our interpretation is incorrect.
p.2.61 Is creative tasks you refer to later as just “tasks”? If so, mention this.
Reply: “Creative” was added for clarity.
p.2.64 En dash.
Reply: We changed the dash in line 64.
p.2.67 Creative confidence? Self-efficacy—regardless of the topic—is what comes to mind. Is the topic specificity (i.e., the addition of “creative”) necessary? Because self-efficacy is a broader concept, which you mention several sections later in your manuscript.
Reply: Creative confidence is a broader category that contains both creative-self efficacy and the more static, trait-like creative self-concept (Karwowski et al., 2019). However, this distinction is not crucial in the context of our argumentation, thus, we have changed it. As creative self-efficacy is a particular form of general self-efficacy (but see the mentioned references in the manuscript; Beghetto 2006, Tierney 2002/2011) we prefer not to delete the “creativity”-specification.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creative self-beliefs. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 396–418). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781316979839.021.
p.2.69 The reference is placed in a different font.
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed it.
p.2.73 Again the “What is more”. It is quite odd. It does not match the sentence (similar to the previous time you write this). In addition, you mention positive creativity without explaining this. I carefully assume that it opposes negative creativity? At this point in your manuscript, I do not know that.
Reply: We have deleted the phrase “What is more”, which we seem to misunderstand. Regarding “positive creativity” we add the explanation to the second paragraph of the manuscript.
p.2.91 I would consider inserting a header here. Furthermore, you mention “short exposure”. What is considered short exposure? It is vague.
Reply: We have extended the description to “short contact with information (e.g., reading a definition of creativity)”. We have also added a header: “Vicarious learning through media”.
p.2.94 I would structure those elements with (a)..., (b)..., (c)... Moreover, the link to motivation becomes apparent here. This also strengthens my suggestion for mentioning self-efficacy as a concept earlier in your manuscript. This concept has not been introduced.
Reply: According to the recommendation, we structured these elements, and have introduced the concept of (creative) self-efficacy earlier in the manuscript.
p.3.101 En dashes = em dashes.
Reply: We corrected the dashes in question.
p.3.104 I am a bit thrown off by the “programs”. At this point, I do not know what you mean with that. Can you give a few examples?
Reply: We have changed “programs” for “shows”, and have added an example—talent shows.
p.3.114 “very clear” = subjective labeling/intensifier. This does not add anything to your message. In a similar vein, you add “easily” in row 116. Also the sentence “could easily facilitate the viewers’ motivation to act creatively. I disagree. If I combine this part with reactions of others to posts (see row 114), you view individuals as passive recipients whilst creativity is actively doing something. Creativity in an individual’s mind can hardly be called creativity if there is not some sort of outlet for it. Likes, shares, and followers do not necessarily imply active involvement (if there is nothing more to it).
Reply: We have removed the (very) unnecessary intensifiers to increase the clarity of the section. In addition, we rephrased this section, e.g., no longer stating that feedback “could easily facilitate the viewers’ motivation to act creatively”, while still arguing that it can “impact a viewers’ motivation to act creatively”, further addressing the crucial point mentioned by the Reviewer, namely that the extent of the impact is “likely depending on the degree of active involvement”.
p.3.122 “are more active in social media”→Active in or on social media? Do you consider it a community (i.e., in) or a platform (i.e., on)? Or both? Regardless, it influences your word choice.
Reply: We mean both and have tried to make this clearer in the manuscript.
p.3.130 En dashes instead of em dashes.
Reply: We have changed the dash in question.
p.3.138 “Particularly” = subjective labelling. Avoid this.
Reply: We were surprised by the use of “particularly” throughout the manuscript and have removed its’ occurrences.
p.3.146 “exposure to diversity is not the same as experiencing it”→Exactly! Therefore, there is a crucial difference between passive and active recipients. This has to be explicitly mentioned to avoid conceptual confusion. In addition, the author’s name needs to be capitalized. Thus, “Van der Wurff” instead of “van der Wurff”.
Reply: We have tried to clarify this aspect and find that in combination with (our response to) the previous comment in this regard, the necessity to distinguish active and passive use/engagement is evident.
p.4.153 Rephrase the question as a statement to pose a stronger case.
Reply: We appreciate this suggestion and have done so.
p.4.157 Use em dashes (instead of en dashes).
Reply: We have corrected the dashes.
p.4.164 How do you define digital creativity? Is that creativity involving something digital? Or related to being online? It also depends on in which stage you use the digital or online aspect. For example, if someone creates a product using traditional materials but shares it on social media. Do you consider this digital creativity? This has to be clarified.
Reply: We have more clearly defined digital creativity and believe that creativity in online environments is now understood as a specific context where digital creativity occurs.
p.4.175 “To hunt down” = informal. Can you come up with a more formal alternative?
Reply: We are very grateful for these suggestions as they clearly improve the readability of the manuscript.
p.4.181/182 “visible and appraisable” = How? When?
Reply: We have now added three specific examples in the according paragraph. While the sentence in question was thought to spark curiosity without directly providing answers, we are okay with its’ removal if it merely sparked confusion, instead.
p.4.186 En dash = em dash.
Reply: We changed this dash.
p.4.187 Can you list examples? Sharing content can via various media and formats. Do you refer to YouTube, Twitch? Even Discord?
Reply: At this part of the manuscript, we would like to refrain from naming specific platforms, for which there are enough examples in a later part.
p.4.195 Restrictions can also take the form of colliding with digital rights, and digital responsibility and safety (see Ribble, 2007).
Reply: We took up on aspects of digital citizenship that indeed seem very fitting, referencing Ribble (2021).
p.5.205 Insert “see” before the source.
Reply: We have added “see” to the reference.
p.5.209 Insert “feedback” (after “Depending on the online environment, this...” to emphasize and to clarify what you are talking about. In addition, the concepts online and digital need to be clarified. Do you view these as interchangeable?
Reply: “feedback” was added. The terms „online“ and „digital” are not viewed as interchangeable, which is now clearer from the more precise definition of digital creativity that relies on affordances of digital technology, including, but not being limited to the Internet.
p.5.215 En dash (= em dash).
Reply: We corrected the dash.
p.5.229 Separate the sources with “;” because you separate the authors and publication years with a comma.
Reply: We have corrected this mistake.
p.5.216 Is that a double space before “As”?
Reply: There should no longer be any double spaces throughout the manuscript.
p.5.244 You mention the active attitude of individuals here (I was referring to this before). If you mention this earlier, you prepare the reader for what is coming.
Reply: Looking at the changes on p3 & p4 that emphasize active engagement vs. passive reception, we would argue that the reader is now well-prepared and acknowledge the importance of this clarification, as suggested by the Reviewer in previous comments.
p.6.Fig1 I would move the figures to your appendices. It is additional information (not crucial for your message).
Reply: We argue that while both figures are not critical, they add information to the discussed cases, such as a general impression of pixel art, a characteristic form of digital creativity, or the photorealistic virtual impression of the Mona Lisa, as well as contemporary art. If deemed necessary, we will move the figures to the appendix.
p.6.271 “very”→Subjective labelling (avoid this). This does not add anything to the message you want to convey.
Reply: The word “very” is now banned from the manuscript.
p.6.281 Should you write “reddit” with a capital letter (i.e., Reddit)? Or is it without a capital letter.
Also check p.5.251.
Reply: We checked the spelling of reddit, as well as other online platforms.
p.6.290 En dashes = em dashes. In addition, is “native” the correct term here? Reply: Dashes are corrected, and we consider “native” to be applicable here.
p.6.296 “pure artistic”→What does this mean?
Reply: We had meant "only", to avoid confusion, we have deleted "pure".
p.6.302 Digital environments? How is this different from online environments? Do they refer to different concepts?
Reply: With online environments, we mean specific areas of the Internet, such as an online platform. Online environments are one part of digital environments, which do not necessarily have to involve the Internet. We have checked the manuscript for inconsistencies in this regard.
p.6.302 You refer to the Internet as an online environment (see p.4.167)? This requires more clarification (see comments about the differences/similarities between online and digital).
Reply: We now give an example of what is meant by an online environment.
p.6.footnotes I would structure the summary in your footnote as: (a)..., (b)..., (c)... instead of 1. ...; 2.
Reply: On the website, the rules that are referred to in the comment were denoted by the digits used in the footnote, thus, we would like to keep them this way.
p.7.322 But it also refers to research about cooperation, collaboration, and social networks.
Reply: We added co-creation as an additional example.
p.7.329 The abbreviation (AUT) has not been introduced yet.
Reply: We have added “alternative uses tasks” and reference to Guilford’s work from 1967.
p.7.345 I am asking myself how you define media (also relates back to in or on social med ia).
Reply: The heading in question was removed from the manuscript.
p.8.357 Do not start a sentence with “but”.
Reply: We have deleted “but” from beginnings of sentences at pages 4. and 8.
p.8.262 En dash = em dash. Also check rows 367, 368, 371, 387, and 388.
Reply: We revised the mistakes across the manuscript.
p.8.389 The concept of media literacy comes as a surprise. It immediately raises questions about digital literacy (or other literacies).
Reply: We have introduced media literacy earlier in the manuscript (p.4) and have added implicit definition as well as an adequate reference for further reading.
p.8.393 I would mention the “dark side” earlier in your manuscript so create more coherence (between your conclusion, title, and the main text).
Reply: This is the second round of revising this manuscript; in the first round, the manuscript was criticized for putting a too strong focus on such negative sides. That said, we would prefer to not dwell on the dark side too much. However, if the Reviewer deems this essential, we will try and adapt the manuscript accordingly.
p.8.399-408 This paragraph has a more informal style compared to the remaining text. Is it possible to go over this section to align it better with the other paragraphs?
Reply: This paragraph was removed in the course of going over the discussion section.
p.9.418 What do you consider popular social media sites and apps? Can you list a few examples?
Reply: We have added a reference for the interested readers.
p.references Can you check if the font colour is the same? In addition, you need to go over your hyphen and en dash use (you use an en dash between the page numbers; not a hyphen). Moreover, you need to recheck the capital letter use in the publication titles (sometimes you capitalize the main words and sometimes you do not). The spacing between the words is also something you need to go over (compares Andsager et al. [2006] and Barbot & Kaufman [2020]). The indents need to be revised accordingly.
Replay: We really appreciate the meticulousness of the comments. We have checked the reference and have fixed pointed mistakes.
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
There are interesting things in this manuscript. There are a number of small points that I did not like and slightly undermine the quality of the article. For example, the word impact is not a verb. It is a noun. Also, there is too much unnecessary first person, at least in the abstract.
I do like the purpose of this paper and its message. I also liked that they presented as a challenge to widespread beliefs about the media.
The word nowadays is certainly informal.
The discussion of creative self beliefs is slightly less than compelling. The problem may be that it is not parsimonious. For example, the authors point to the need for personal creative identity and then they define that in terms of a conviction that creative activity is valuable and important. How does this differ from the fact that a person holds values that creativity is important? In other words, the person values creativity. The focus there is on values. Looking directly at values would be more parsimonious than looking at values as one part of creative self beliefs.
Authors also could have been clear about the risk involved, line 68. Several people have discussed the risk of creativity.
There is non-parallel construction on line 72. The authors use the plural pronoun but creative self belief, which is the antecedent, is singular.
The argument that begins on line 140 about diversity is an important one, but I don't think the authors bring it home. They say that exposure to diversity is not the same as experiencing it and have a citation, but then they seem to talk about how to get the best exposure.
Think I really like the argument that develops below line 120. I think the authors are admitting that it is one thing to be creative, but something independent of that involved with fame or, to use their word, success. This is an important point and it has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Kasof vs his commentators).
The manuscript covers a great deal of ground and is provocative. There were a couple of points which could receive elaboration, such as the discussion of risk, but that isn't vital. There were a couple of points where I thought clarification was needed, but I really liked the manuscript. It is definitely good food for thought. If this is for the special issue, I am not sure that the message about positive creativity is apparent throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have a pretty strong cognitive dissonance concerning this article. On the one hand, the authors have consciously chosen the form of a scientific essay. The bibliography is quite rich and fairly up-to-date (although some names frequently repeat, which raises some questions about the literature selection criteria).
On the other hand, however, should an essay mean a complete abandonment of any methodology? Primarily if it refers to the issue of impact - which in the first place would suggest the use of methods proper to sociology to examine this impact and its actual scope. A perfunctory characterization of the article's objectives (28-36) is problematic from a scientific perspective to take seriously. Exemplification cannot serve as proof of influence or lack of it. In everyday life, we tend to use so-called availability heuristics. After all, each of us can recall an event that may contradict or confirm a hypothesis. But a case study cannot be used to verify quantitative hypotheses.
Perhaps my assessment is too harsh for the authors because they probably put a lot of work into their article. Nevertheless, I do not see the sense of publishing derivative articles, where the whole novelty is reduced to a perfunctory discussion of one or several examples. Instead, this text needs a severe rethinking of methodology and methodological framework. Only then will it meet the criteria of a scientific text (yes, even if it is an essay).
Reviewer 3 Report
I do not consider the submitted text suitable for publication. It is neither a research article nor a theoretical study, but rather an essay (as stated in the introduction), which is outside the genre of the journal. I don't consider it happy to scientifically polemicise a TV series. I believe that such an approach can either be illustrative (the series is just an illustration) or it goes beyond scientific discourse, which is, unfortunately, the case here.
The text presented here does not have a clearly articulated educational level (it is only a kind of an add-on) and fits more into a media study-oriented journal. It does not adhere to the citation standard of the journal.
The introductory section is inappropriately structured, and subsequent chapters are superficial and unanalytical. They are more a description of a state of affairs that is fairly familiar to most, rather than a truly critical philosophical or analytical look at the chosen problem.
The text also has strengths from which I select:
1. a very interesting selection of quality and relevant sources on the topic.
2. identification of some interesting facets of creativity.
3. Emphasizing that creativity is the goal and purpose of education in the information society. It is an essential skill that needs to be given due attention.
