Beyond Assistance: Embracing AI as a Collaborative Co-Agent in Education

Response to Reviewer x Comments

1. Summary

We would like to sincerely thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We believe your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and coherence of our manuscript. Your suggestions helped us gain a clearer perspective on the gaps in our work and motivated us to create a more robust and conceptually grounded narrative

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must   be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The theoretical framework and literature review that form the basis of academic research are superficially glossed over under the Introduction section. This heading can perhaps be considered as a literature review in part, but the lack of a theoretical framework is a significant problem. Important theoretical concepts such as posthumanism, post-human intimacy, and dialogic learning are present, however merely mentioned without any explanation on how they provide insight into the research conducted and how they find a place in the manuscript.

Response 1: We fully acknowledge the validity of your observation regarding the absence of a clearly articulated theoretical framework. In the initial version of the manuscript, we attempted to integrate theoretical references briefly within the Introduction section, in adherence to the structure provided by the template. However, we now recognize that this approach limited the clarity and analytical depth of our conceptual foundation. In response, we have developed a dedicated conceptual framework that aligns closely with the key concepts we employ throughout the paper. These include posthumanism, co-agency, non-human agency, as well as the notions of play and flow. We have elaborated on how these concepts guide our understanding of students’ experiences and provide interpretative tools for analyzing our findings.We also chose to remove the notion of post-human intimacy, as it did not directly inform the analysis of our data. Although some students mentioned feeling more comfortable or open when interacting with the AI, they themselves acknowledged the limits of such familiarity. Their narratives explicitly emphasized that, while AI may offer a low-pressure environment for expression, it cannot replace the emotional depth and embodied presence of human interaction. We also incorporated a clearly stated research hypothesis and refined the formulation of the research questions to better align with the study's aims and structure. (pages 2–5)

Comments 2: [A similar deficiency exists for the method section. The author(s) stated that discourse analysis was applied to a large data set compiled using different techniques. However, no concrete explanation is provided regarding the systematic nature of the analysis. For example, how were linguistic and conceptual patterns in students’ projects determined? Are the themes in thematic analysis inductive or deductive? What are the prominent concepts in the discourse about AI, etc.?]

Response 2:. You are also right in highlighting the importance of the methodology chapter, as it constitutes the foundation for establishing the validity and reliability of the research. We have now provided more detailed information regarding the conduct of the research, following established qualitative research standards. We also included a detailed account of this theoretically grounded instructional material, as it clarifies the pedagogical rationale behind students’ engagement with AI and situates their dialogic practices within a structured learning framework. More specifically, we included a detailed description of the instructional guide titled “Artificial Intelligence as a Learning Partner through Dialogic Learning”, which was introduced during the course as an optional resource. This addition clarifies how students were invited to engage with AI through structured techniques such as role assignment, iterative prompting, and critical questioning—elements that directly informed the analytical focus of our study.

Systematic Analysis of Data

In response to your question on the systematic nature of the analysis, we now clarify that our analytical process consisted of three distinct but interconnected phases of data collection:

1.         field notes from student presentations,

2.         Student projects and creative deliverables, and

3.         Reflective questionnaires, inductively constructed based on emerging classroom dynamics.

These multiple data sources were integrated using methodological triangulation, in line with best practices in ethnographic inquiry

To make the analysis more transparent, we now provide illustrative excerpts of student discourse and analytical tables (Tables 1 & 2) that trace key categories such as AI as a tool, AI as dialogic partner, structured prompting, critical inquiry, flow experience, and AI-assisted accessibility. These categories were grounded in the empirical material and validated through repeated cycles of interpretation and discussion among the co-authors.

We also explored the use of ChatGPT as a meta-analytical tool to trace students' reasoning chains. While initially helpful, we observed that the model began to fabricate logic in later stages, and we transparently describe the limitations of this experiment in the manuscript.

In direct response to your comment—“Are the themes in thematic analysis inductive or deductive? What are the prominent concepts in the discourse about AI?”—we affirm that our coding was predominantly inductive, although it was informed by a conceptual sensitivity shaped by the course’s theoretical orientation.

We initially approached the data with particular attention to the notions of co-agency and dialogic learning, which were already embedded in the pedagogical framework and student guide. However, through the iterative process of analysis, new conceptual dimensions emerged from the students' discourse, including the experience of flow, the role of playfulness

Comments 3: results and discussion After developing the theory section, I recommend expanding the discussion section by discussing the results in the light of theory and literature.

We have also expanded the Discussion section to more explicitly engage with the theoretical concepts outlined earlier. The findings are now interpreted through the lenses of co-agency, dialogic learning, and flow, and are discussed in relation to relevant literature on human–AI interaction. This revision strengthens the analytical coherence of the study and illustrates how students’ experiences resonate with, challenge, or contribute to existing theoretical perspectives. .(pp.11-20)

Comments 4: Although the study reveals interesting results, the findings and conclusions seem quite arbitrary due to the lack of theory and method. For instance, gamification, which is never mentioned in theory and literature -only once in the  findings to describe Rania's experience (p.8 l. 391)- takes a central place in the conclusion with expressions such as "dialogical, playful relationship", "game-performance", "digital game-based learning". The author(s) also quote Kaimara et al. for the first time accordingly.

The author(s) also mention that the study identified practical challenges such as insufficient funding, a lack of ICT training, and entrenched traditional teaching methods. These issues, which were not included in the study's aims, research questions, and results, find again their place in the conclusion for the first time.

The conclusion should not be a section where previously unmentioned literature or ideas are mentioned, but a summary of the ideas mentioned and emphasized throughout the study. If the issue of game-based learning is seen as very vital in the conclusion reached, it may be useful to use this conceptualization to develop the missing theory part.

Thank you for kindly pointing out this important issue that game-based learning and gamification were not part of the original theoretical framing or explicitly emphasized in the findings section. The reference to a “dialogical, playful relationship” and “game-performance” in the conclusion stemmed from our observation of emerging patterns of flow and creative engagement—particularly in cases like Rania’s project—but we acknowledge that these terms appeared prematurely without prior theoretical development.

In response to your comment, we have revised the conclusion to avoid introducing new, unsupported concepts. Instead, we now clearly state that play and flow emerged as interpretive themes during the analysis, particularly through students’ descriptions of immersive and experimental interactions with AI. While these patterns suggest interesting parallels with game-based learning, we now frame this not as a conclusive claim, but as a direction for future research.

Additionally, we have adjusted the structure of the conclusion to ensure that it accurately reflects the core arguments developed throughout the manuscript, avoiding the inclusion of ideas (such as institutional challenges or infrastructure limitations) that were not part of the original aims or data presentation.

Thank you for this important observation, which helped us refine both the conceptual integrity and structural coherence of the manuscript.(pp.11-20)

5. Additional clarifications

[Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses, and Methods Clearly Stated?
(•) Can be improved
Response: We have substantially revised the manuscript to ensure that the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are crystal-clear. Specifically:

• The research questions are now stated explicitly (pp. 4–5).
• The primary hypothesis appears clearly at the end of the Introduction (p. 4).
• The Methods section (pp. 5–11) now provides step-by-step detail on data collection, coding procedures (inductive thematic analysis), and triangulation]

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript, both in terms of clarity and analytical depth. We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions, as detailed below, and we believe that the revised version reflects these improvements. 

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 1 The manuscript presents findings of a Human-Centered AI approach, exploring the dialogic interaction between students and the use of GenAI in a creativity course. While the manuscript offers some concluding themes (sections 3.1-3.3), the presentation is confusing and difficult to understand

Response 1: [we truly appreciate your thoughtful observation regarding the need for greater clarity in the presentation of the findings. In response, we have carefully restructured the conclusions to create a more coherent and unified narrative. Additionally, we have revised the entire findings section to ensure a more integrated and narrative flow. This revised version aims to clearly articulate the main thematic insights and more effectively highlight the contribution of dialogic interaction with GenAI, situated within a Human-Centered AI framework, particularly in the context of a creativity-oriented coursepp11-20.]  

Comments 2: It is essential to clearly outline the phases of data collection - the manuscript should clarify whether classroom observations were conducted first, followed by student assignment analysis, and then questionnaires, or vice versa. The timeline for when these data were collected should be explicitly stated to provide a clear understanding of the research process

Response 2: We agree with the reviewer’s comment regarding the need to clarify the phases of data collection. In response, we have revised the methodology section to explicitly present the sequence of the research process, pp, 6-11

Comments 3: In the methods section, the authors mentioned a cyclical process, but it was unclear whether the perceived roles of agency and co-agency are transforming over time or if there are binary perceptions by different pools of participants. This ambiguity needs to be addressed to help readers comprehend the dynamic nature of these perceived roles. A detailed explanation of the cyclical process and how it impacts the study's findings would be beneficial.

We consider this comment particularly valuable, as it highlights a crucial aspect of our study. To clarify: by describing the process as cyclical in the methodology section, we refer to the following sequence of phases. First, the course lectures were conducted. This was followed by the students’ project presentations. Based on insights from these two initial stages, we then designed and administered targeted questionnaires. Finally, we proceeded with the analysis and coding of all collected data. Through this iterative and responsive structure, it becomes clear that the role of AI as a learning partner was not perceived in fixed or binary terms, but was instead gradually shaped through students’ ongoing engagement with the AI across the various phases of the study.

We believe that this progression is now clearly reflected both in the methodology chapter and in the presentation and analysis of the findings. Indeed, we consider this comment to be one of the most insightful contributions to the refinement of the study, (pp5-11)

Commet 5: Regarding the results reporting, the authors reported three themes: AI as a tool, AI literacy, and the role of AI in the educational process. However, the presentation of these results was heavily blended with perspectives and discussion, making it challenging to distinguish between the research findings and points open for scholarly debate (which are typically written under Discussion). The manuscript would benefit from a clearer separation of these elements to enhance comprehension.

Initially, we attempted to integrate the analysis of the findings with their interpretation in a unified narrative. However, following your valuable suggestion, we have now clearly separated these elements to enhance clarity. The revised version presents the analysis of the findings in a distinct section, while the subsequent Discussion offers a deeper interpretation supported by relevant theoretical perspectives. Additionally, we took your feedback into account and restructured the entire narrative flow of the manuscript to improve coherence and readability,( pp11-20)

5. Additional clarifications

We have substantially revised the manuscript to ensure that the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are crystal‐clear. Specifically:

• The research questions are now stated explicitly
• The primary hypothesis appears clearly at the end of the Introduction (. 4).
• Additionally, we developed a separate section for the research’s conceptual framework so that the concepts being analyzed are used to interpret the findings (2-4), and we added a separate chapter for the related work.(5)