Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 6, 2026
Accepted
August 5, 2026
Published
May 8, 2026
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 7 Download : 1

Main Article Content

Abstract


This study investigates the effectiveness of a project-based learning framework in scaling the design cognition of architecture students through structured integration of generative AI tools, examining whether a tiered pedagogical approach helps students transition from passive tool users to active directors of machine intelligence. The research employed a project-based strategy merging the Stanford Design Thinking model with the Educational Design Ladder. Seventy-three architecture students from Universitas Islam Indonesia participated in the Computational Design Thinking course during 2025/2026. Students progressed through manual nature observation, prompt engineering with language models, generative image creation, 3D model conversion, parametric refinement, and physical fabrication. Data were collected through surveys, grading rubrics measuring higher order thinking skills, student reflections, and comparative analysis with non-AI cohorts. Results showed measurable improvement, with average grades rising from 75.3 to 77.9 compared to previous non-AI cohorts. Significant gains occurred in translating ideas into computational logic (+6.8 points) and design report quality (+6.9 points). Students reached Synthesis and Evaluation levels of the Educational Design Ladder (79.2). Self-reported cognitive habits improved from 3.60 to 3.71, while prompt writing proficiency increased from 3.48 to 3.63. Students generated over ten design alternatives per concept, demonstrating expanded creative output. Physical 3D print quality showed slight decline, and students reported cognitive load during transitions to node-based interfaces and hardware installation barriers. Single institution study over one semester limits generalizability. Technical barriers affected some participants. Focus on early-stage design cognition may not capture long term skill retention. Future implementations should introduce computational tools earlier in the curriculum, provide robust hardware infrastructure and technical support, and conduct longitudinal studies on professional application. This research provides a replicable pedagogical roadmap for integrating AI while maintaining human creative authority. Institutions should embed AI throughout the curriculum, establish ethical guidelines, and provide structured technical scaffolding to help students achieve higher order thinking skills in human AI collaboration.


Keywords

Architectural education design cognition generative AI human AI collaboration project-based learning

Article Details

References

  1. Bao, Y., & Xiang, C. (2023). Exploration of conceptual design generation based on the deep learning model: Discussing the application of AI generator to the preliminary architectural design process. Conference: xArch symposium Creativity in the age of digital reproduction.
  2. Basarir, L. (2022). Modeling AI in Architectural Education. Gazi University Journal of Science, 35(4), 1260 1278. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.967981.
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green.
  4. Bölek, B., Tutal, O., & Özbaşaran, H. (2023). A systematic review on artificial intelligence applications in architecture. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture & Planning, 4(1), 91 104. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2023.v4i1085.
  5. Borghoff, B. P & Pareschi R (2025) Human artificial interaction in the age of agentic AI: A system theoretical approach. Frontiers in Human Dynamics. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2025.1579166
  6. Cheung, L. H., & Dall'Asta, J. C. (2023). Human–computer interaction (HCI) approach to artificial intelligence in education (AIED) in architectural design. EÍDOS: Revista Científica de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, 23.
  7. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Fields, Z., & De Jager, C. (2022). The educational design ladder and design thinking pedagogy: A customised training programme for creative problem solving. Journal of Contemporary Management, 19(2), 135 156. https://doi.org/10.35683/jcm21075.162.
  9. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
  10. Hegazy, M., & Saleh, A. M. (2023). Evolution of AI role in architectural design: Between parametric exploration and machine hallucination. MSA Engineering Journal, 2(2), 418 421. https://doi.org/10.21608/MSAENG.2023.291873.
  11. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). FT Press.
  12. Li, C., Zhang, T., Du, X., Zhang, Y., & Xie, H. (2025). Generative AI models for different steps in architectural design: A literature review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 14, 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2024.10.001.
  13. Mallgrave, H. F. (2013). Architecture and embodiment: The implications of the new sciences and humanities for design. Routledge.
  14. Mitchell, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence hits the barrier of meaning. Information, 10(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10020051.
  15. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised ed.). Basic Books.
  16. Nurmatova, S., & Altun, M. (2023). A comprehensive review of Bloom's taxonomy integration to enhance novice EFL educators' pedagogical impact. Arab World English Journal, 14.
  17. Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281 306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu 2019 0022.
  18. Pareschi, R. (2024). Beyond human and machine: An architecture and methodology guideline for centaurian design. Sci, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6040071.
  19. Rane, N. L., Choudhary, S. P., & Rane, J. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT, Bard, and leading edge generative artificial intelligence in architectural design and engineering: Applications, framework, and challenges. International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 3(2), 92 124. https://doi.org/10.51483/IJARP.3.2.2023.92 124.
  20. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155 169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
  21. Salem, A., Mansour, Y., & Eldaly, H. (2024). Generative vs. non-generative AI: Analyzing the effects of AI on the architectural design process. Engineering Research Journal (ERJ), 53(2), 119–128.
  22. Silva, D. (2019). Digital fabrication—From tool to a way of thinking—Toward redefining architectural design methodology. Proceedings of CAADRIA 2019. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2019.2.463.
  23. Sukkar, A. W., Fareed, M. W., Yahia, M. W., Mushtaha, E., & De Giosa, S. L. (2024). Artificial intelligence Islamic architecture (AIIA): What is Islamic architecture in the age of artificial intelligence? Buildings, 14, Article 781 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030781.
  24. Verganti, R. (2017). Overcrowded: Designing meaningful products in a world awash with ideas. MIT Press.
  25. Vogel, S., & Schwabe, L. (2016). Learning and memory under stress: Implications for the classroom. Science of Learning, 1, 16011. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.11.
  26. Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education And Teaching International, 54(4), 374 385.https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
  27. Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: A comparison of massive open online courses. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(3), 275 292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.06.002