SAMR Analysis of Craiyon Generative AI by Gemini
SAMR is a framework used to evaluate the level of technology integration in education. It stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. Let’s analyze Craiyon generative AI using this framework.
Substitution
- Definition: Technology substitutes for traditional tools or activities.
- Craiyon: Craiyon could replace traditional drawing tools like pencils or crayons. However, the quality and complexity of the generated images might be limited, especially for detailed or specific artistic expressions.
Augmentation
- Definition: Technology enhances the learning process by adding functionalities.
- Craiyon: Craiyon could augment the learning process by:
- Providing a quick and easy way to visualize ideas or concepts.
- Generating images for storytelling or creative writing.
- Helping students explore different artistic styles and techniques.
Modification
- Definition: Technology allows for tasks to be completed in new ways.
- Craiyon: Craiyon could modify the learning process by:
- Enabling students to create personalized and unique visuals.
- Facilitating collaborative projects where students can combine their ideas to generate images.
- Introducing new creative possibilities that might not be achievable with traditional methods.
Redefinition
- Definition: Technology creates new learning tasks and experiences that were not possible before.
- Craiyon: Craiyon could redefine the learning process by:
- Inspiring students to explore new artistic mediums and techniques.
- Fostering computational thinking and understanding of AI algorithms.
- Enabling students to create digital art pieces that can be shared and exhibited online.
Conclusion
Craiyon generative AI has the potential to significantly enhance the learning experience, especially in subjects like art, design, and creative writing. While it can substitute for traditional tools, its true value lies in its ability to augment, modify, and redefine the learning process by providing new creative opportunities and fostering computational thinking.
Technology Review
Since I wanted to familiarize myself with new generative AI tools, I elected to use a language AI I’ve never used before: Google’s Gemini. Before I enlisted it to write the SAMR reflection, I attempted to play some games with Gemini. Hangman was unsuccessful, as Gemini would try to include every letter I guessed in the word, so the word ended up being nonsensical. I also tried to play Mad Libs, however Gemini would tell me the story beforehand, and in order to be surprised I had to scroll so it would be out of view. I then attempted 20 questions, both having Gemini guess and come up with the object in question. During the round when I was guessing, Gemini would not answer “no” to any of my questions, it behaved as if I asked leading questions and after 4 questions, told me I’d guessed the correct answer. When I had Gemini guessing, it gave up before asking 20 questions in spite of me picking a common pet as the animal. While Gemini was unsuccessful in my gaming attempts, it did provide a comprehensive reflection on Craiyon’s capabilities, including multiple examples for each claim, and I think it is promising as an academic writing tool.
I also used an AI image generation tool for the first time: Craiyon. Craiyon was initially successful, and even provided multiple drawings in multiple styles which was much more elaborate than I expected. However when provided with negative prompts, Craiyon did not interpret these correctly, instead generating an image of the thing I’d explicitly prompted it not to do.
Figure 1“Please draw me an empty room” prompt, Craiyon, version 4, OpenAI, 10 Oct. 2024, labs.openai.com/.
Figure 2“Please draw me a room with zero elephants” prompt, Craiyon, version 4, OpenAI, 10 Oct. 2024, labs.openai.com/.
I think these tools are most helpful for planning creative projects, essays and otherwise, rather than the entire execution of the projects. Gemini provided several arguments and examples that inspired my personal ideas, and although I do not agree with all of the claims, it did bring up aspects I may not have otherwise considered altogether which can offer students a jumping-off point to begin critically reflecting. Similarly, Craiyon is applicable for base-stage creative development and could be an integral tool for storyboarding comic books, illustrated novels, and even short film projects for classes. These stages often involve a lot of manual labor for a result that is ultimately not included in the final product, and using AI image generation instead of hand creating could save a lot of time and creative effort, without removing much of the creative process from the artist. With improvement, I could even foresee AI image generation softwares such as Craiyon being incorporated into the film industry for this same purpose. That said, I do not think AI will replace human artists at any point, no matter how much it’s capabilities advance. There are details that come only with human touch, such as individual brushstrokes and layers and imperfections which add beauty and emotion to a piece of art, AI cannot replicate these uniquely human quirks.
“Please write me a SAMR analysis of craiyon generative ai” prompt. Gemini, Google. 11 Oct., https://gemini.google.com/app/eda03ab7b8b47394?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2024enCA_gemfeb&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwmaO4BhAhEiwA5p4YL6BQcjfRHALkW3Jz7pH4Pdy1PoGB7K9F4QHNf0uqG_82fJN1dUkTdxoCLcwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds