Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, particularly in creative disciplines, the role of AI turns into a co-creative partner. This study investigates the impact of AI-relevant training on media and communication students in Taiwan, focusing on the development of AI literacy, self-efficacy, higher-order thinking, creativity, and reliance. Drawing on a survey of 327 students who have received AI training, the study employs structural equation modelling to examine how critical thinking, problem-solving, and creative dispositions shape students’ AI literacy and behavioral reliance. The results reveal that AI literacy significantly enhances task-based self-efficacy (assistance), but not emotional comfort with AI. Critical thinking and creative self-efficacy positively influence AI literacy, while problem-solving and creative identity do not. Notably, only perceived assistance—not AI literacy or comfort—predicts AI reliance, suggesting that functional confidence, rather than affect or knowledge alone, drives behavioral use. These findings highlight the nuanced dynamics of human–AI interaction in creative education and propose a shift toward a co-creativity pedagogical model. The study contributes theoretically to the evolving definition of AI literacy and practically to the design of curriculum that fosters ethical, reflective, and productive AI use in the creative industries.

Keywords

co-creative media and communication AI literacy AI reliance higher- order thinking

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ausat

A. M. A.

Massang

Efendi

Nofirman

Riady

(2023). Can Chat GPT replace the role of the teacher in the classroom: A fundamental analysis. Journal of Education, 5(4), 16100–16106. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i4.2745

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares

Urdan

(Eds.), Adolescence and education: Self efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307–337). Information Age.

Baskara

F. R.

(2023). The promises and pitfalls of using Chat GPT for self-determined learning in higher education: An argumentative review. Prosiding Seminar Nasional, 2(2), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.47435/sentikjar.v2i0.1825

Belpaeme

Kennedy

Ramachandran

Scassellati

Tanaka

(2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), Article eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

Bewersdorff

Hornberger

Nerdel

Schiff

D. S.

(2025). AI advocates and cautious critics: How AI attitudes, AI interest, use of AI, and AI literacy build university students’ AI self-efficacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100340

Bitzenbauer

(2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), Article ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176

Bleumink

A. G.

Shikhule

(2023). Keeping AI honest in education: Identifying GPT-generated text. Edukado AI Research. https://cdn.aicheatcheck.com/Keeping_AI_Honest_in_Education__Identifying_GPT_generated_text.pdf

Boden

M. A.

(1994). Précis of the creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(3), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0003569X

10.

Boden

M. A.

(1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1-2), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00055-1

11.

Cabitza

Campagner

Angius

Natali

Reverberi

(2023). AI shall have no dominion: On how to measure technology dominance in AI-supported human decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Hamburg, Germany, April 2023, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581095

12.

Celik

(2023). Exploring the determinants of Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy: Digital divide, computational thinking, cognitive absorption. Telematics and Informatics, 83, 102026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102026

13.

Chan

C. K. Y.

(2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

14.

Chang

C.-Y.

Lin

H.-C.

Yin

Yang

K.-H.

(2025). Generative AI-assisted reflective writing for improving students’ higher order thinking Evidence from quantitative and epistemic network analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 28(1), 270–285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48810719

15.

Chow

P.-S.

(2020). Ghost in the (Hollywood) machine: Emergent applications of artificial intelligence in the film industry. NECSUS European Journal of Media Studies, 9(1), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/14307

16.

Cooper

(2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y

17.

Cotroneo

Hutson

(2023). Generative AI tools in art education: Exploring prompt engineering and iterative processes for enhanced creativity. Metaverse, 4(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.54517/m.v4i1.2164

18.

Craft

(2003). Creative thinking in the early years of education. Early Years, 23(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140303105

19.

Datta

Goswami

(2021). The film industry leaps into artificial intelligence: Scope and challenges by the filmmakers. In Rathore

V. S.

Dey

Piuri

Babo

Polkowski

Tavares

J. M. R. S.

(Eds.), Rising threats in expert applications and solutions (pp. 665–670). Springer.

20.

Ding

Jiang

Gapud

(2023). Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00434-1

21.

Doncieux

Chatila

Straube

Kirchner

(2022). Human-centered AI and robotics. AI Perspectives, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42467-021-00014-x

22.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

23.

Fuchs

(2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of NLP models in higher education: Is Chat GPT a blessing or a curse? Frontiers in Education, 8, 1166682. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1166682

24.

GEC

T. G. E. C. o. t. E. Y.

(2025). https://www.gender.ey.gov.tw/gecdb/Stat_Statistics_Query.aspx?sn=rLo6muPkITmp3C%247!Ud4UQ%40%40&statsn=iANrHSwfo!3qcf1S9upnCA%40%40&d=&n=28385

25.

Gioti

A.-M.

(2020). From artificial to extended intelligence in music composition. Organised Sound, 25(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771819000438

26.

Gordon

Breazeal

Engel

(2015). Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Portland, Oregon, USA, ACM, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696469

27.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

28.

Hannan

Liu

(2023). AI: New source of competitiveness in higher education. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 33(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2021-0045

29.

Hasan

(2003). The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(4), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00079-1

30.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

31.

Höddinghaus

Sondern

Hertel

(2021). The automation of leadership functions: Would people trust decision algorithms? Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106635

32.

Hong

J.-W.

(2022). I was born to love AI: The influence of social status on AI self-efficacy and intentions to use AI [technology acceptance model, self-efficacy, diffusion of innovation, social status, artificial intelligence]. International Journal of Communication, 16, 172. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17728

33.

Hwang

G.-J.

Lai

C.-L.

Liang

J.-C.

Chu

H.-C.

Tsai

C.-C.

(2018). A long-term experiment to investigate the relationships between high school students’ perceptions of mobile learning and peer interaction and higher-order thinking tendencies. Educational Technology Research & Development, 66(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9540-3

34.

Hwang

G.-J.

Yin

Chu

H.-C.

(2019). The era of flipped learning: Promoting active learning and higher order thinking with innovative flipped learning strategies and supporting systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 991–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1667150

35.

Jaussi

K. S.

Randel

A. E.

Dionne

S. D.

(2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397339

36.

Zhong

Lyu

Niu

Zhan

(2025). How does AI literacy affect individual innovative behavior: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction, creative self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning. Education and Information Technologies, 30(11), 16133–16162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13437-4

37.

Jiang

Pang

(2023). Enhancing design thinking in engineering students with project-based learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(4), 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22608

38.

Kafai

Y. B.

Burke

(2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming (1st ed.). The MIT Press.

39.

Kantosalo

Thattai Ravikumar

Grace

Takala

(2020). Modalities, Styles and Strategies: An Interaction Framework for Human–Computer Co-Creativity. In Cardoso

Machado

Veale

Cunha

J. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 57-64). Association for Computational Creativity.

40.

Karwowski

(2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898

41.

Kaufman

J. C.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

42.

Kim

Lee

Cho

Y. H.

(2022a). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6069–6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6

43.

Kim

Merrill

Jr. Xu

Kelly

(2022b). Perceived credibility of an AI instructor in online education: The role of social presence and voice features. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, 107383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107383

44.

Knoth

Tolzin

Janson

Leimeister

J. M.

(2024). AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225

45.

Küper

Krämer

(2024). Psychological traits and appropriate reliance: Factors shaping trust in AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(7), 4115–4131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2348216

46.

Laupichler

M. C.

Aster

Schirch

Raupach

(2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101

47.

Lee

Palmer

(2025). Prompt engineering in higher education: A systematic review to help inform curricula. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00503-7

48.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

49.

(2022). Research on the application of artificial intelligence in the film industry. SHS Web Conf, 144, 03002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202214403002

50.

Lim

E. M.

(2023). The effects of pre-service early childhood teachers’ digital literacy and self-efficacy on their perception of AI education for young children. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12969–12995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11724-6

51.

C. K.

(2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/4/410

52.

Long

Magerko

(2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

53.

López Jiménez

E. A.

Ouariachi

(2021). An exploration of the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation for communication professionals. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 19(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-03-2020-0034

54.

Pang

Shadiev

(2021a). Understanding the mediating effect of learning approach between learning factors and higher order thinking skills in collaborative inquiry-based learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(5), 2475–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10025-4

55.

Yang

H. H.

Shi

Wang

(2021b). Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7

56.

D. T. K.

Leung

J. K. L.

Chu

S. K. W.

Qiao

M. S.

(2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

57.

Oksanen

Savela

Latikka

Koivula

(2020). Trust toward robots and artificial intelligence: An experimental approach to human–technology interactions online. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 568256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568256

58.

Parmiti

D. P.

Antara

I. G. W. S.

Wulandari

I. G. A. A. M.

(2022). The effectiveness of E-scrapbook media containing HOTS questions on science learning outcomes of elementary school students. Journal of Education Research and Evaluation, 6(3), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v6i3.52078

59.

Pavlik

J. V.

(2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577

60.

Peres

Schreier

Schweidel

Sorescu

(2023). On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artificial intelligence may affect research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.03.001

61.

Pinski

Marc

Benlian

Alexander

, 2023. “AI Literacy - Towards Measuring Human Competency in Artificial Intelligence,” Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 135990, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).

62.

Plucker

J. A.

Makel

M. C.

(2010). Assessment of creativity. In Kaufman

J. C.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.005

63.

Podsakoff

Williams

Huang

Yang

(2023). Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030

64.

Pulliam-Moore

(2023). Unfortunately, secret invasion’s AI credits are exactly what we should expect from Marvel. The Verge. Retrieved 2023.10.17 from. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/27/23770133/secret-invasion-ai-credits-marvel

65.

Rati

Arnyana

I. B. P.

Dantes

G. R.

Dantes

(2023). HOTS-oriented e-project-based learning: Improving 4C skills and science learning outcome of elementary school students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(6), 959–968. DOI:10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.6.1892

66.

Rhodes

(1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603

67.

Saptono

Suparno

Wibowo

Ahman

Ismiyati

Sukayugi

(2020). An Analysis of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in the Learning of Economics. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.4.16

68.

Schoeffer

De-Arteaga

Kuehl

(2024). Explanations, fairness, and appropriate reliance in human-AI decision-making. In The CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 11–16 May, 2024.

69.

Smith

J. R.

Joshi

Huet

Hsu

Cota

(2017). Harnessing A.I. For augmenting creativity: Application to movie trailer creation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on multimedia, mountain view, California, USA, October 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123266.3127906

70.

Solberg

Kaarstad

Eitrheim

M. H. R.

Bisio

Reegård

Bloch

(2022). A conceptual model of trust, perceived risk, and reliance on AI decision aids. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 187–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221081238

71.

Stojanov

Liu

Koh

J. H. L.

(2024). University students’ self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learning: A latent profile analysis. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100243

72.

Tajik

(2023). A comprehensive examination of the potential application of Chat GPT in higher education institutions. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22589497

73.

Theophilou

Koyutürk

Yavari

Bursic

Donabauer

Telari

Testa

Boiano

Hernandez-Leo

Ruskov

Taibi

Gabbiadini

Ognibene

(2023). Learning to Prompt in the Classroom to Understand AI Limits: A Pilot Study. AIxIA 2023– Advances in Artificial Intelligence: XXIInd International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, AIxIA 2023, Rome, Italy, November 6–9, 2023, Proceedings, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47546-7_33

74.

Wang

Rau

P.-L. P.

Yuan

(2023a). Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(9), 1324–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768

75.

Wang

Sun

Chen

(2023b). Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students’ self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4919–4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11338-4

76.

Wang

Y.-Y.

Chuang

Y.-W.

(2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4785–4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w

77.

Weakland

J. H.

(2003). Feature films as cultural documents. In Paul

(Ed.), Principles of visual anthropology (pp. 45–68). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110221138.45

78.

Weber

Pinski

Baum

(2023, 8-12 July 2023). Toward an objective Measurement of AI literacy. PACIS 2023. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:dar:wpaper:138515

79.

Wingström

Hautala

Lundman

(2022). Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2107850

80.

(2023). Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1181712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712

Co-Creating With AI: How Communication Students Learn,Think,and Rely on Intelligent Systems

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References