Skip to main content
Download PDF

Collaborative AI-enhanced digital mind-mapping as a tool for stimulating creative thinking in inclusive education for students with neurodevelopmental disorders

BMC Psychology volume 12, Article number: 488 (2024) Cite this article

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Nowadays, inclusive education is becoming an increasingly important method in the education of people with various types of disabilities. This study is aimed at investigating the effectiveness of utilizing collaborative digital mind-mapping techniques in the practical work of students in inclusive educational groups, as well as examining how the use of AI-provided prompts influences the development of creative skills.

Methods

The study involved 163 participants, among whom 28 had neurodevelopmental disorders. The application of the proposed methodology resulted in an improvement in the indicators of creative thinking as measured by the Torrance Figural Creativity Test, specifically in terms of Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and overall creativity score; the observed increase was statistically significant according to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p = 0.05).

Results

This increase in indicators was observed both in students with neurodevelopmental disorders and in students without developmental disorders, with a notably stronger impact observed on students with neurodevelopmental disorders. Furthermore, a slightly higher effectiveness of the applied methodology was recorded when AI prompts were used for both categories of students. Students with neurodevelopmental disorders largely perceived the usefulness of the prompts they received subjectively.

Conclusions

The present research may contribute to further study of various creativity development methodologies in inclusive education, as well as regarding the influence of AI utilization on creative skills. The obtained results can be utilized in the development of educational programs for students in higher education institutions that support inclusive forms of learning.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Nowadays, inclusive education is a fairly common training method for people with different types of disabilities. This training methodology allows people with disabilities of physical or cognitive development to fully participate in school life or other educational institutions on an equal footing with non-disabled peers [1]. Inclusive education responds to the needs of such students and provides them with specialized conditions and support [2]. Nowadays, people with different types of disabilities can receive education in any non-specialized educational institution. Nevertheless, ensuring the comprehensive assimilation of material and preventing the formation of a gap between students with and without disabilities remains a challenge [3].

There is significant scope for exploring opportunities to overcome such disparities through various assistive technologies and tools for adapting technologies for individuals with disabilities. Screen reading software, text scanners, voice recognition applications, Braille readers, and numerous other assistive technologies have a more specific purpose of overcoming particular barriers in information perception, whereas technologies of broader application, such as virtual reality, gamified learning platforms, social networks, etc., have the potential to make education more accessible through easier-to-perceive and more attractive forms of information delivery [4]. Also, there are various additional applications to develop cognitive abilities among students with intellectual disabilities [5]. One of the examples is the applications for people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) that help them socialize. For example, Speech Blubs, Story Builder for iPad, Easy Dyslexia Aid - Dysgraphia Spelling & Literacy Helper, Otsimo, etc. Such applications help them express their emotions, contributing to the development of creative potential [6, 7]. However, the effectiveness of employing such technologies varies depending on the competence of educators in their utilization, understanding their intricacies and limitations, as well as the diverse specific needs of students [8].

One of the significant trends in contemporary education is the emphasis on the importance of fostering creativity. This skill receives considerable attention as one of the essential components of entrepreneurship development, problem-solving, and ensuring sustainable development [9]. It has also been proved that the disclosure of the creative thinking potential increases the motivation of students to study and allows them to solve more complex problems through a creative approach [10]. Regarding students with special educational needs, debates still persist as to whether various forms of mental or physical developmental disorders are accompanied by higher levels of creativity simultaneously. However, its development is capable of aiding such students in finding their own place in society, by generating unique ideas or products [11].

A wide variety of technologies have been proposed for the development of creative skills, and their usefulness varies considerably. Among the suggested technologies are gaming applications, platforms for digital storytelling, software for 3D modeling and digital imaging, various simulations in virtual reality, virtual laboratories, and numerous other tools [12]. However, while many technologies are being tested for their utility in preschool and school settings for children with special needs, few have been tested for use in inclusive higher education. This stage is critically challenging for many individuals with special needs, significantly limiting their future career paths.

Literature review

The concept of creative education and the development of relevant abilities is quite multifaceted. The most common definition of creativity is the ability to generate ideas that are simultaneously novel and original, as well as practically effective or relevant [13]. Creativity necessitates the engagement of not just one, but multiple skills and components, such as motivation, knowledge, the ability to combine ideas, and so forth [14]. It is noted, however, that among teachers, there is often a lack of clear understanding regarding creativity and its developmental possibilities [13].

Among the conditions that the educational environment should meet to stimulate creativity, researchers mention the presence of a specific ‘critical event’, which denotes activities that significantly differ from students’ everyday activities, as well as the presence of freedom in organizing and utilizing the surrounding space, providing sufficient time, availability of a wide range of creative tools, and encouraging feedback [15, 16]. Hence, various additional courses, open projects, and events can become an incentive for creative thinking development [17]. The importance of social collaboration for stimulating the creative process is also emphasized [14]. A favorable environment in the team contributes to better outcomes regarding creative thinking. In this case, teachers have a direct influence on this process. Teams with trusting relationships between the teacher and students contribute to increasing the level of creative thinking among students. It is especially noticeable when the main focus during training lies rather on expressing individual opinions than on standardized assessment [18].

Computer technology, in turn, can serve as a supportive and convenient environment (‘computer as nanny’), a tool for expanding the possibilities of idea realization (‘computer as pen-pal’), or even as a coach that offers a step-by-step plan and tasks aimed at fostering creativity development (‘computer as coach’) [19]. Digital technologies can provide convenient tools that expedite the implementation of creative ideas, universal opportunities for presenting various forms of creativity (such as social networks, video platforms), opportunities for real-time collaboration, and also enable the practice of risky and bold ideas in a safe environment [20].

In one of the recent research reviews [14], the utilization of various digital tools to stimulate creativity was documented, including web technologies, blogs, multimedia presentations, and forums where students were tasked with creating content; the use of robots (particularly those for which students were required to create programs), the development of digital games, concept mapping, working with subject-specific devices (such as pH meters), and engaging in virtual reality experiences. Each type of technology usage entails its own specificity.

One approach involves digital storytelling, which encourages students to express their own ideas and thoughts on specific topics in a free-form manner; digital technologies in this context serve as tools that allow for more expressive and diverse presentations [21, 22]. Such activities can be combined with the use of social media as well as competitive gaming elements [23]. This approach has been tested in inclusive settings, including its proposal to enhance foreign language learning quality in inclusive education by stimulating creativity in students [24]. Moreover, the use of digital communication tools has the potential to improve communication quality and reduce social anxiety for individuals with conditions such as ASD.

In STEM education, various activities are proposed for fostering creativity, including creating computer games, programming robots, or engaging in virtual laboratories [25,26,27,28]. Researchers, who studied mastering computer programming skills by students with intellectual disabilities, obtained successful results using clear instructions and an intuitive interface [29]. Also, researchers used video modeling technologies in exact sciences education to teach problem-solving skills [30]. These technologies render complex disciplines more tangible, simultaneously encouraging experimentation, as the ability to quickly see results promotes experimentation. Students engage in solving specific tasks that require experimentation, combining available materials, thus stimulating creative thinking. The effectiveness of these technologies may vary. For instance, a review of empirical research conducted by Wang et al. [31] demonstrated that virtual reality has a moderately positive impact on students’ creativity but does not affect practical innovative skills. Moreover, it was found to be more effective in stimulating creativity in the acquisition of declarative knowledge rather than procedural knowledge.

An intriguing approach to stimulating creativity involves thematically unrelated stimuli. For instance, in a study by [32] it was found that providing thematically unrelated verbal stimuli to designers creating visual designs resulted in greater creativity compared to designers receiving thematically related stimuli. Some programs for artists operate on a similar principle by offering randomly selected images from the internet for inspiration. Such techniques fall under the category of knowledge activation, which stimulates the active utilization of various knowledge stored in long-term memory [33].

Another prevalent type of activity proposed to stimulate creativity is mind mapping, particularly with the use of digital tools [34,35,36,37]. Mind maps allow ideas and their relationships to be visually represented in a convenient format, and new ideas can be easily added. They facilitate better retention of ideas in memory and make their collective discussion convenient [37], while digital tools, in turn, remove limitations by offering opportunities for unlimited editing and diverse formatting. Researchers Malycha and Maier [33] went further and decided to combine mind mapping techniques with random input—consequently, students were to create mind maps on a specific topic while another student provided a random word from a book or another source. The impact of the combined methodology on creativity was found to be higher than that of mind mapping or random stimuli alone.

Regarding the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in fostering creativity, AI is largely considered in the context of collaboration with humans, augmenting and enhancing human creative skills, although there are considerable concerns regarding the displacement of human creative endeavor by AI [38, 39]. Researchers highlight the potential use of AI as a tool to undertake more mundane aspects of creative tasks, freeing up time for creative exploration for humans [40]. In education, AI has recently become a significant player regardless of whether developers of educational programs actively incorporate it, as students often independently adopt the technology [41, 42]. Current research indicates a positive correlation between the use of AI in education and diverse skills among students, including creative skills [31]. However, this issue requires more in-depth and narrowly focused research to demonstrate precisely how AI impacts the educational process in various forms, circumstances, and objectives of application. Of particular relevance is the investigation of the potential applications of AI for stimulating the development of various skills in inclusive education.

Objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate how the inclusion of students in practical sessions using collaborative digital mind-mapping techniques, with and without the use of AI-provided prompts, influences the creative skills of students in inclusive education, particularly those suffering from neurodevelopmental disorders. The objectives of the present research are to:

  1. 1.

    Develop educational tasks aimed at fostering the creative skills of students, utilizing digital mind-mapping techniques with and without the use of AI prompts, adapted to the conditions of inclusive education for students with neurodevelopmental disorders.

  2. 2.

    Determine and compare the level of creative skills between healthy students and students with neurodevelopmental disorders before and after the implementation of the developed educational program.

  3. 3.

    Identify the perception nuances of the implemented methodology by students with neurodevelopmental disorders, including aspects such as the quality of social interaction during task completion, perception of cognitive overload, students’ perception of the utility of such techniques for developing creative skills, as well as the subjective assessment of the usefulness of AI-provided prompts by students.

Methods and materials

Sample

The study involved students from four higher education institutions: Al Ain University, Minxi Vocal & Technical College, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and Makhambet West Kazakhstan University. Academic groups comprising students with neurodevelopmental disorders alongside those without any mental health-related limitations were selected. The age of students varied from 18 to 23 years. In total, 163 people participated in the study — 28 of them had neurodevelopmental disorders. Specifically, 9 students had ADHD, 4 students had mild to moderate dyslexia, 3 had Asperger’s syndrome, 7 had autism level 1 or 2, and 5 students had Asperger’s syndrome.

Digital mind-mapping tool

In this study, the digital mind-mapping tool Mindomo was utilized. This tool is specifically designed to facilitate inclusive collaboration in educational and work environments. Accessible via browser on computers and also available as an application for tablets and smartphones, its distinctive features catering to individuals with diverse educational needs include compatibility with screen reading and voice input programs, text enlargement capabilities, support for uploading audio files into diagrams, and the option for voice input from phones. Additionally, the program offers alternative navigation supporting keyboard commands for individuals with motor skill difficulties. It also provides ready-made templates for diagrams and lists, simplifying tasks and allowing focus on content. The minimalist workspace design is engineered to prevent cognitive overload from excessive icons, while tooltips appearing upon hover facilitate easy recall of each tool’s purpose (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the program incorporates built-in task functions, teacher monitoring of each student’s contribution, and grading capabilities.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mindomo Interface ((a) - tooltips provided by the program before starting work, (b) - menu for creating diagram elements)

Full size image

The program’s functionality for creating mind maps includes adding text boxes, hyperlinks, videos, images, audio, and emoji icons, as well as various forms of displaying relationships between concepts (arrows, boundaries, connecting brackets, lists), and the choice of shape and color. Additionally, the program has a set of built-in functions using AI - adding AI-generated ideas, notes, questions, pros and cons, etc. (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

AI functions offered by the Mindomo program: 1 - AI function call menu, 2 - AI suggestions provided

Full size image

For the research, we selected the “Expand with topics” function. Unlike the other proposed functions, it has the most open-ended nature, presenting not a completed fragment of information, but a suggestion for further expansion.

Design and procedure

The first stage of the conducted experiment involved an introductory session held for each of the groups participating in the study. During the introductory session, instructors explained how the research would be conducted and demonstrated and explained all the features offered by the mind mapping software for collaborative project work. Additionally, pre-testing was conducted using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural, with the involvement of professional psychologists working at each of the educational institutions. The session was conducted in person, allowing for unrestricted organization of testing and individual assistance to students who had questions regarding the use of the software.

Subsequently, students followed the following schedule. Given the participation of students from various educational institutions and fields of study in the research, one subject from the standard curriculum was randomly selected for each group to serve as the basis for creativity development sessions. Time was allocated for seminars or other forms of sessions in the Mindomo software, involving work in small groups (up to 15 individuals) to review theoretical material and complete practical tasks. Depending on the current conditions at each educational institution, such sessions were conducted either online or in computer-equipped classrooms. The frequency of these sessions was 2–3 times per week; during each session, instructors were required to allocate 15–30 min to work in Mindomo.

The task in Mindomo aimed at developing creative skills was conducted after discussing the main topic of the session and followed this structure. Based on the discussed topic, students were required to create a diagram, with the only restriction being thematic relevance. The diagram could represent both a visual exposition of concepts that students managed to memorize upon completion of the session and ideas regarding the potential practical application of acquired knowledge or their connection to information studied by students in other sessions, obtained independently from other sources, or personal experience. Students were encouraged to generate unconventional connections, add their associations, and experiment with forms of presentation, adding images, short videos, or links to internet pages (Fig. 3). During group work, students used a single online document, to which they each sequentially added information at their discretion. While performing the task, students had the opportunity to discuss its content, and the instructor ensured that each participant had the opportunity to express themselves. Additionally, students from half of the research groups assigned to use AI were encouraged to use AI suggestions to continue the diagram, while students from the control groups were not allowed to use this feature.

Fig. 3
figure 3

One of the diagrams created by students during the study

Full size image

The duration of the experiment spanned one academic semester. Upon completion of the experimental period, post-testing was conducted using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural. Additionally, after the experiment concluded, students with neurodevelopmental disorders were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews regarding their experience in the new type of educational activity. Those students who consented took part in the interviews, and their responses were recorded.

Measurement

To assess the level of students’ creativity, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural, Form A was utilized. A significant advantage of this form is its greater universality concerning age, language, and cultural background. The tasks of the test include generating drawings based on provided stimuli, completing unfinished drawings, and creating drawings based on parallel lines. The performance results of these tasks are used to evaluate creativity along five dimensions: “fluency” (regards productivity as the number of adequately completed tasks), “originality” (relates to the uniqueness of drawings, that is, how typical and common the answers were, or rare and unusual), “titles abstractness” (presupposes assessing the ability to perceive the essence, highlight the most important), “resistance to premature closure” (the extent to which the student is inclined or not inclined to complete the task prematurely, without having enough time to ensure the necessary cognitive processes that make original ideas possible), and “elaboration” (detailed images). Experienced psychologists with no less than 10 years of professional experience were engaged to conduct the testing at each of the institutions.

Additionally, to conduct a more detailed analysis of the experience of students with neurodevelopmental disorders in the new educational activity, semi-structured interviews were conducted. The questions focused on the perception of student engagement in group work and equal participation opportunities, the perception of cognitive overload, and subjective perceptions of how stimulating the task was to creative activity. Moreover, students who worked in AI groups were additionally asked about their perception of the usefulness and appropriateness of AI-provided prompts. Researchers initiated the discussion of each topic with a general question, subsequently transitioning to a more specific discussion of details identified by each student as favorable or unfavorable. After completing the data collection, a thematic analysis was conducted. The provided responses were analyzed to identify and code similar patterns, followed by calculating the frequency of their occurrence among the total number of respondents.

Statistical data processing and analysis

The Microsoft Excel 2019 program was utilized for preliminary data processing. Statistical computations were conducted using the JASP 0.18.3.0 statistical software. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to test the hypothesis regarding the normality of the distribution of variables in the studied groups. As the null hypothesis concerning the normality of distribution was not confirmed, non-parametric calculations were subsequently employed for further comparisons, including the computation of the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for paired samples.

Limitations

In this study, the examination of the effectiveness of the collaborative mind mapping technique, with and without the use of AI-generated prompts, was conducted using a single software application (Mindomo). The results may vary somewhat when using different software, as the interface features and set of functions may influence students during task performance. Additionally, the quality of AI-generated prompts may vary depending on the specific technology integrated by the application developer. Furthermore, due to the limited sample size, this study did not explore the specific effects of the studied technique on students with different specific disorders or neurological characteristics. Moreover, the response of individuals with special educational needs to various educational interventions can be highly individualistic.

Ethical issues

The study participants were informed about the purpose of the research and all its details both orally and in writing. Consequently, all respondents gave written consent to participate in the experiment. Participation in the experiment was voluntary; academic groups in which at least one student did not consent to participate in the study were not included in the research.

Results

Before the beginning and at the end of the experimental period, participants of all experimental and control groups were tested with Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural to identify their level of creative thinking. This test included five criteria and an overall result. Table 1 presents the mean values of standardized scores from the pre-test for students assigned to groups with and without the use of the AI function. The obtained results of the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality did not confirm the normal distribution, hence the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied for independent samples. Comparison of the obtained results did not reveal a significant difference between the groups for any of the indicators (p = 0.05), allowing for further post-experimental comparison of groups to determine the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.

Table 1 Pre-test scores for the 5 components and overall score of the Torrance test of creative thinking
Full size table

Furthermore, a significant difference between pre-test scores of students with cognitive impairments and those without such impairments was observed for the Fluency, Originality, and Abstractness of titles components. Specifically, students with cognitive impairments scored lower on average for the Fluency component (on average 11–12 points lower than in groups of students without impairments; the difference was significant at p = 0.05) and Titles abstractness (on average 7–9 points lower than in groups of students without impairments); however, they obtained higher scores for the Originality component (scores were 11–12 points higher than in groups of students without impairments).

Following the conclusion of the experimental period, retesting of the creative potential of students was conducted to identify possible changes. The results of comparing pre- and post-test scores of creative potential for students with neurodevelopmental disorders using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Comparison of pre-and post-test scores of creative potential using the Torrance Test of Creative thinking for students with neurodevelopmental disorders employing the wilcoxon signed-rank test
Full size table

Significant changes in some of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking indicators were observed in both the experimental group practicing with the use of the AI function and the control group creating mind maps without using the AI function. Specifically, in the AI group, the results significantly increased for Fluency (from 90.57 to 99.86), Originality (from 108.57 to 117.36), Elaboration (from 88.93 to 96.36), indicators, as well as for the overall creativity score (from 104.43 to 110.96) (significance level p = 0.05). In the group that did not use the AI function, the creativity test scores also increased, but to a slightly lesser extent, namely, Fluency increased from 91.55 to 97.73, Originality – from 109.13 to 116.12, Elaboration – from 89.25 to 95.36, and Overall result – from 105.12 to 109.74. No significant differences were found for other indicators.

The results of comparing pre-and post-test scores of students without cognitive impairments participating in the experiment are presented in Table 3. In this case, the increase in scores among students creating mind maps with the use of AI was slightly lower than in students with cognitive impairments engaged under similar conditions. Specifically, among students in the experimental group without cognitive impairments, there was a significant increase in Fluency (from 103.70 to 109.69), Originality (from 96.63 to 99.27), Elaboration (from 83.53 to 89.94) and overall score (from 98.30 to 104.31), whereas in the control group not using the AI function, significant increases were observed in the Originality (from 98.03 to 104.45), Elaboration (from 84.77 to 91.73) and Overall result (from 97.82 to 101.14) indicators.

Table 3 Comparison of pre- and post-test indicators of creative potential using the Torrance Test of Creative thinking for students without cognitive impairments using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Full size table

Thus, the sessions offered to students on creating mind maps had a positive impact on creativity indicators according to the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking for both students without cognitive impairments and those with neurodevelopmental disorders. Moreover, among students with cognitive impairments, the increase in creativity indicators after completing the training program was greater than among students without impairments. Additionally, the improvement in creativity indicators, particularly in Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and overall test score, was slightly greater among those students who engaged with the AI feature, both among students with cognitive impairments and those without.

Furthermore, following the experimental period, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants suffering from mental disabilities and ASD regarding their experience participating in collaborative mind map creation activities. Out of 28 such students, 21 agreed to be interviewed, with 13 of them belonging to groups that used AI (experimental groups) and 8 belonging to groups that did not use AI (control groups). Below are the results classified according to thematic categories of questions raised during the interviews.

  1. 1.

    Engagement in group work

Thus, eight out of thirteen surveyed students from the experimental groups and six out of eight students from the control groups reported to varying degrees a positive impact of the proposed activity on engagement in group work and communication with peers. The most commonly cited advantages were the structured and understandable nature of the task, where each student took turns adding a specific thematically related element, and the relative simplicity of the task facilitated a sense of contribution on par with peers. For example, one participant provided the following assessment:

“…I usually don’t go to the board to perform tasks in front of a group because it’s stressful for me. Additionally, in such tasks, not much attention is paid to the different learning paces of different students; if someone doesn’t understand something, they simply don’t participate. In the schema task, everyone could add what they knew to the overall schema, and this element complemented it”.

However, nearly half of the students from each group noted that they still found it challenging to participate in collective discussions due to a significant gap in knowledge.

  1. 2.

    Cognitive Overload

Of the group using AI, 5 out of 13 students reported experiencing cognitive overload, while 2 out of 8 students from the non-AI group made similar remarks. This was attributed not to the interface of the program but rather to the nature of group work, as exemplified by one statement:

“…towards the end of the task, I lost track of my thoughts because everyone was adding elements to the diagram somewhat chaotically, without providing any specific rule. As a result, similar expressions appeared at different ends of the diagram.”

  1. 4.

    Assessment of Tasks Regarding Creativity Development Opportunities

Regarding the subjective perception of the task’s relevance to creativity development, 8 out of 13 students from the AI groups and 5 out of 8 students from the control groups, in one form or another, indicated that the task stimulates creative activity:

“Since the instructor mentioned encouraging unusual connections and associations, the task was indeed somewhat creative. Some group members, especially those most interested in the subject, added quite interesting supplements from their own knowledge or ideas, after which other participants joined in further developing these themes.”

However, 2 students from each group noted that the task was difficult to describe as creative, with a larger portion reflecting simple repetition of the material learned or borrowing from specific sources, making it difficult for the rest to determine their stance on this issue.

  1. 5.

    Perception of the Appropriateness of AI Suggestions by Students

Among the 8 students from the groups using AI, 7 predominantly expressed positive evaluations of the appropriateness of AI-provided suggestions, noting that these suggestions helped them recall more possible continuations of the topic. 5 of the respondents expressed varying degrees of surprise at the meaningfulness and relevance of the prompts, with 2 respondents noting that while the prompts were mostly useful, sometimes they seemed incorrect or nonsensical.

Discussion

Regarding the potential of mind-mapping techniques in fostering the development of creative skills in students, several previous studies have been dedicated to this topic; however, most of them focused on students without cognitive impairments. In the study by Fu et al. [33] mind-mapping was used as a tool facilitating the creative activity of students studying English, particularly in the completion of game tasks involving the development of tourist plans. According to the evaluation of creativity using the Torrance Test, students demonstrated a significant increase in fluency and elaboration scores, although no significant difference was observed in the originality score. Similarly, a study by Karim and Mustapha [35] yielded positive results in terms of fluency and originality. In the study by Sun et al. [37], groups of students who performed better on the learning task utilized mind-mapping and group discussions more intensively; among various creativity strategies, mind mapping primarily supported associative thinking. Overall, the results obtained in this study, namely the improvement in creative skills in terms of fluency, originality, elaboration, and overall creativity score, confirm the general trend regarding the identified positive impact of similar techniques. However, a novel aspect in this study was the use of prompts provided by AI. Several studies have been dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of various specially designed stimuli in stimulating creative processes. For instance, Malycha and Maier [33] found a positive impact of the random input technique, which involved providing the student with a random word while working on creating a mind map, on their level of creativity. The stimulus in the form of AI prompts has a somewhat different nature. In this study, they were used as assistance for students with learning difficulties, aiming to prompt them toward possible continuation ideas for their diagrams, thereby reducing the stress associated with the need to complete tasks within a limited timeframe. The AI prompts provided were quite detailed and fully relevant to the topic; however, a characteristic feature was the risk of certain inaccuracies. In this study, this risk was mitigated by the presence of the instructor, who supervised the students’ work and made corrections as necessary.

Similar to this study involving students with cognitive impairments, others have demonstrated the positive impact of various visualizations on the development of creativity. For example, researchers from the UK and Singapore studied the impact of visual posts on creative thinking. Thanks to the creation of projects in web communities, they have proved that graphical visualization directly affects creativity and motivation [43]. The positive impact on the development of creativity in students with cognitive impairments has been documented when utilizing various other techniques and technologies. Studies involving students with disabilities in programming activities tailored to their needs demonstrated increased creativity indicators, specifically flexibility, originality, and openness, following educational interventions [27]. Digital storytelling sessions on social media platforms showed improved performance across all four components of Guilford’s Divergent Thinking test (fluency, flexibility, elaboration, originality), additionally, increased use of social media correlated with higher levels of creativity [23]. Various assistive technologies in education for students with special needs proved effective in compensating for attention deficits [44], structuring communication for students with communication problems [45], creating adaptive environments for students experiencing sensory overload [46]. These data suggest that enhancing creativity in students with cognitive impairments and using digital technologies for this purpose are entirely justified and realistic. Further research should complement this direction by studying the specific features of applying different techniques in various forms of developmental disorders, which will allow obtaining maximum benefit for each student individually.

Conclusions

The study experiment demonstrated that the implementation of collaborative digital mind-mapping technique in inclusive practical sessions for students has a positive impact on the development of creative thinking among both students with neurodevelopmental disorders and those without cognitive impairments. Moreover, the use of mind-mapping even exerted a somewhat stronger influence on students with neurodevelopmental disorders than on healthy students. Additionally, a slightly greater positive effect was observed in those student groups that utilized prompts provided by AI as suggestions for expanding mind maps with new subtopics. According to the results of the testing of students using the Torrance Figural Creativity Test, the greatest increase in scores after completion of the educational program was observed in students with neurodevelopmental disorders who engaged with AI prompts. Specifically, in the AI group, significant improvements were noted in Fluency (from 90.57 to 99.86 according to the standardized score of the Torrance Figural Creativity Test), Originality (from 108.57 to 117.36), Elaboration (from 88.93 to 96.36), and overall creativity score (from 104.43 to 110.96) (p-value = 0.05). Among students with neurodevelopmental disorders who did not utilize AI, creativity test scores also increased, albeit to a slightly lesser extent: Fluency increased from 91.55 to 97.73, Originality from 109.13 to 116.12, Elaboration from 89.25 to 95.36, and overall result increased from 105.12 to 109.74. Concurrently, increases in scores were also demonstrated by students without cognitive impairments. Results from the semi-structured interviews conducted with students suffering from neurodevelopmental disorders predominantly revealed positive assessments regarding the impact of the proposed type of activities on the quality of social interaction during learning and the ability for equal participation among students with learning difficulties. AI-provided prompts were also perceived as useful by the majority of students, although some noted certain inaccuracies or nonsensical formulations. However, it is worth considering certain limitations of the present study. Since the focus group consisted of people with various types of disabilities, it may have an impact on the accuracy of the results, which, in turn, confirms the need for additional research.

The present study demonstrates the effectiveness of using the technique of collaborative digital mind-mapping using AI prompts for students with disabilities within inclusive education. The practical value of the present study lies in the possibility of implementing this training mode into the educational process within colleges and higher educational institutions. At the same time, it is worth taking into account the unique features of this methodology for each student for further consideration and modification.

Availability of data and materials

Data will be available on request.

Change history

  • 07 October 2024

    Following publication of this article, the corresponding author has requested to remove askhabdallah@gmx.com from their corresponding authorship and use just akabdallah@sea.ac.ae

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

ASD:

Autism spectrum disorders

References

  1. Robinson-Pant A. Inclusive education: thinking beyond systems. Compare. 2020;50(5):619–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1769382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lavin CE, Francis GL, Mason LH, LeSueur RF. Perceptions of inclusive education in Mexico City: an exploratory study. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2020;69(3):1065–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1749572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang HY. Attitudes towards inclusive education among instructors at universities in Taiwan. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2020;70(1):90–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1849575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moriña A, Carballo R, Castellano-Beltran A. A systematic review of the benefits and challenges of technologies for the learning of university students with disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2024;39(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231175357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Samadi SA, McConkey R. Perspectives on inclusive education of preschool children with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities in Iran. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102307.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Karami B, Koushki R, Arabgol F, Rahmani M, Vahabie AH. Effectiveness of Virtual/Augmented reality-based therapeutic interventions on individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:887. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.665326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zilz W, Pang Y. Application of assistive technology in inclusive classrooms. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(7):684–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1695963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thapliyal M, Ahuja NJ. Underpinning implications of instructional strategies on assistive technology for learning disability: a meta-synthesis review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;18(4):423–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1864669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saleh R, Brem A. Creativity for sustainability: an integrative literature review. J Clean Prod. 2023;388:135848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li P, Zhang ZS, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Nunez M, Shi J. From implicit theories to creative achievements: the mediating role of creativity motivation in the relationship between stereotypes, growth mindset, and creative achievement. J Creat Behav. 2021;55(1):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Azhari MHR, Syah AI, Falah MZ, Handoko WT, Afifah FW, Sucipto S. Strategies for empowering persons with disabilities to increase technology-based creativity in the pdk- pro community probolinggo regency. Community Dev J. 2023;4(4):7045–9. https://doi.org/10.31004/cdj.v4i4.18162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bereczki EO, Kárpáti A. Technology-enhanced creativity: a multiple case study of digital technology-integration expert teachers’ beliefs and practices. Think Skills Creat. 2021;39:100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grigorenko EL, Creativity. A challenge for contemporary education. Comp Educ. 2019;55(1):116–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1541665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aguilar D, Pifarre Turmo M. Promoting social creativity in science education with digital technology to overcome inequalities: a scoping review. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01474.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Desmet OA, Sternberg RJ. Innovative teaching strategies for fostering transformational creativity. Think Skills Creat. 2024;52:101543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gu X, Ritter SM, Delfmann LR, Dijksterhuis A. Stimulating creativity: examining the effectiveness of four cognitive-based creativity training techniques. J Creat Behav. 2022;56(3):312–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daly SR, Mosyjowski EA, Seifert CM. Teaching creative process across disciplines. J Creat Behav. 2019;53(1):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cole DG, Sugioka HL, Yamagata-Lynch LC. Supportive classroom environments for creativity in higher education. J Creat Behav. 1999;33(4):277–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01407.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Glăveanu VP, Ness IJ, Wasson B, Lubart T. Sociocultural perspectives on creativity, learning, and technology. In: Mullen CA, editor. Creativity under duress in education? Volume 3. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90272-2_4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Creely E, Henriksen D. Creativity and digital technologies. In: Peters MA, Heraud R, editors. Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. Springer; 2019. pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_143-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Fernandez S. Making space in higher education: disability, digital technology, and the inclusive prospect of digital collaborative making. Int J Incl Educ. 2021;25(12):1375–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharma S, Hartikainen H, Ventä-Olkkonen L, Iivari N, Eden G, Kinnunen E, et al. Pursuit of inclusive and diverse digital futures: exploring the potential of design fiction in education of children. Interact Des Archit. 2021;51:219–48. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-051-010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stolaki A, Economides AA. The creativity challenge game: an educational intervention for creativity enhancement with the integration of information and communication technologies(icts). Comput Educ. 2018;123:195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Belda-Medina J. Promoting inclusiveness, creativity and critical thinking through digital storytelling among EFL teacher candidates. Int J Incl Educ. 2022;26(2):109–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Guedes LS, Johnstone J, Ellis K, Landoni M. Creative technologies in action: empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities. Computers helping people with special needs. Springer International Publishing; 2024. pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Harrison M. Supporting primary students with disabilities and neurological differences in developing digital thinking skills through an inclusive game-making club. In: Keane T, Fluck AE, editors. Teaching coding in K-12 schools. Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 157–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21970-2_11.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu SY, Wu CL, Huang YM. Evaluation of disabled steam -students’ education learning outcomes and creativity under the un sustainable development goal: project-based learning oriented steam curriculum with micro:bit. Sustainability. 2022;14(2):679. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Othman A, Ahmed S, Al-Mohannadi AD, MadaFabLab. An inclusive STEM and fabrication environment for creativity and innovation and its impact on persons with disabilities. Nafath. 2022;7(21):1–5. https://doi.org/10.54455/mcn.21.07.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor MS. Computer programming with Pre-K through first-grade students with intellectual disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2018;52(2):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918761120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Satsangi R, Billman RH, Raines AR, Macedonia AM. Studying the impact of video modeling for algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2021;55(2):67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920937467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Y, Liu W, Yu X, Li B, Wang Q. The impact of virtual technology on students’ creativity: a meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2024;215:105044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chiu I, Shu LH. Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity. J Eng Des. 2012;23(4):271–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.603298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Malycha CP, Maier GW. The random-map technique: enhancing mind-mapping with a conceptual combination technique to foster creative potential. Creat Res J. 2017;29(2):114–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fu Q-K, Lin C-J, Hwang G-J, Zhang L. Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Comput Educ. 2019;137:59–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Karim RA, Mustapha R. Tvet student’s perception on digital mind map to stimulate learning of technical skills in Malaysia. J Tech Educ Train. 2022;14(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Silva H, Lopes J, Dominguez C, Morais E. Lecture, cooperative learning and concept mapping: any differences on critical and creative thinking development? Int J Instr. 2022;15(1):765–80.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sun M, Wang M, Wegerif R, Peng J. How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Comput Educ. 2022;176:104359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hitsuwari J, Ueda Y, Yun W, Nomura M. Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Comput Hum Behav. 2023;139:107502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vinchon F, Lubart T, Bartolotta S, Gironnay V, Botella M, Bourgeois-Bougrine S, et al. Artificial Intelligence & creativity: a manifesto for collaboration. J Creat Behav. 2023;57(4):472–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jia N, Luo X, Fang Z, Liao C. When and how artificial intelligence augments employee creativity. Acad Manage J. 2024;67(1):5–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Adeshola I, Adepoju AP. The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interact Learn Environ. 2023;in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858.

  42. Kim S-W, Lee Y. Investigation into the influence of socio-cultural factors on attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Educ Inf Technol. 2023;29:9907–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12172-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Caldwell H, Whewell E, Heaton R. The impact of visual posts on creative thinking and knowledge building in an online community of educators. Think Skills Creat. 2020;36:100647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Andreou G, Argatzopoulou A. A systematic review on the use of technology to enhance the academic achievements of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in language learning. Res Dev Disabil. 2024;145:104666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Crowell C, Mora-Guiard J, Pares N. Structuring collaboration: multi-user full-body interaction environments for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2019;58:96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2018.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Williams KL, Dumont RL, Schiano NR, Lawlor KF, Greaney K, Kim R, et al. Use of sensory adaptive environments with autistic children: a scoping review. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2024;114:102362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2024.102362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Minxi Vocational & Technical College, Fujian, China

    Menglin Fang

  2. Department of Education, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Menglin Fang

  3. Education Leadership Department, Sharjah Education Academy, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Asma Khaleel Abdallah

  4. Department of Music Education, Makhambet West Kazakhstan University, Uralsk, Kazakhstan

    Olga Vorfolomeyeva

Authors
  1. Menglin Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asma Khaleel Abdallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olga Vorfolomeyeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization: MF. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AKA and OV. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MF and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asma Khaleel Abdallah.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved at the meeting of the Ethics Committee of United Arab Emirates University (Protocol No. 102; Dated: 12.05.2022).

Informed consent was signed by participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, M., Abdallah, A.K. & Vorfolomeyeva, O. Collaborative AI-enhanced digital mind-mapping as a tool for stimulating creative thinking in inclusive education for students with neurodevelopmental disorders. BMC Psychol 12, 488 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01975-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01975-4

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us