Navigating Authorship and Ethics: A Framework for Evaluating Human-AI Collaborative Outputs in Art Education

This paper introduces a Five-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Human-AI Collaborative Outputs, designed to address the challenges of assessing AI-mediated creative work in art and music education. Grounded in qualitative, theory-informed methodology, the framework integrates insights from authorship, creativity, digital media pedagogy, and AI ethics. The five dimensions—intentionality, process transparency, transformative contribution, ethical stewardship, and educational alignment—provide a structured lens for evaluating relational authorship, learner engagement, and the educational quality of AI-supported outputs. Each dimension was operationalized using qualitative indicators within a criteria-referenced rubric, allowing flexible assessment across media, course levels, and assignment types. Intentionality evaluates the clarity and depth of learner purpose in AI use; process transparency emphasizes traceable and visible creative development; transformative contribution distinguishes superficial AI selection from substantive human reworking; ethical stewardship foregrounds integrity, fairness, and cultural awareness; and educational alignment ensures AI use supports specific learning outcomes. Applied examples from visual arts and music demonstrate how the framework differentiates between minimal and substantive engagement with AI, highlighting the significance of reflective practice, documentation, and accountable decision-making. Beyond assessment, the framework informs assignment design, critique-based pedagogy, and policy development by fostering transparency, ethical AI use, and alignment with learning objectives. By bridging conceptual rigor and practical applicability, the framework provides educators with a comprehensive tool to evaluate, guide, and enhance human-AI collaborative creative processes, ensuring that AI serves as a medium for meaningful learning rather than mere automation.

human-AI collaboration, art education

1. Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1), 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10037-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bantugan, B. (2026). Human-centric artificial intelligence for development. International Journal of Arts and Social Science, 9(2). https://www.ijassjournal.com/2026/V9I2/51466642183.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bantugan, B., & Li, X., et al. (2024). The adoption of artificial intelligence of selected international Chinese educators enrolled as graduate students in the College of Education of St. Paul University Manila. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 11(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1102011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bantugan, B. (2023). Integral human development in higher education and HIV-AIDS advocacy work of Filipino artists. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v2i2.2966 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bantugan, B. (2026). A multisectoral and democratized AI governance policy for St. Paul University Manila: Countering global techno-authoritarianism and abuse. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 13(1), 1040–1078. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2026.13010093 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bantugan, B., Montenegro, G., & Modesto, B. (2025). The National Arts Month of the Philippines, college students of St. Paul University Manila, and celebrating art in community. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 12(2), 1104–1118. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12021104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bantugan, B., Vaswani, J., Ogalesco, J., Villanueva, B., & Butial, A. (2025). Building the research knowledge management framework of the South Luzon cluster of the St. Paul of Chartres education ministry. International Journal of Arts and Social Science, 6(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bantugan, B. S., Bantugan, F. C., & Urbano, R. C. (2018). Bridging the age-related communication gap: An encounter between senior citizens and communication students towards social integration. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.15206/ajpor.2018.5.2.84 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bantugan, B. S., & Valeriano, E. M. (2019). The culture of volunteerism among St. Paul University Manila student leaders. Paulinian Compass: The Asia-Pacific Journal on Compassion Studies, 5(3), 33–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Barfield, W. (2023). Generative AI and Creative Authorship: Emerging Legal and Ethical Frameworks. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience (Original work published 1934). Perigee. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fiske, S. T., Kiley, K., & Waytz, A. (2024). The human-in-the-loop: Maintaining agency in the age of generative agents. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2), 210–218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jiang, Y., Fan, Y., & Liu, Z. (2026). Generative AI in art education: A systematic review of research trends, tool applications, and outcomes (2019–2025). Education Sciences, 16(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Liu, Q., & Chew, R. S. Y. (2025). Generative AI and creative thinking in art education: A TPACK-based theoretical framework. Journal of China-ASEAN Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Zhang, C., & Xu, S. (2025). Aesthetic experience and educational value in co-creating art with generative AI: Evidence from a survey of young learners. arXiv. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zhu, Z., Gan, Q., & Duan, P. (2026). Art and design teachers’ acceptance of AI-generated content for assisted tutoring: An extended TAM-TPACK framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study