ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This study investigates the integration effects of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in three-dimensional composition courses and its implications for design education. Through a mixed-methods approach (N=104) combining quantitative surveys and qualitative analysis, findings reveal that AI tools significantly enhance creative efficiency (inspiration stimulation mean=3.49, solution screening mean=3.452) and optimize workflow processes (efficiency perception mean=3.356), while simultaneously exposing technical limitations in 3D model practicality (mean=3.337) and tool compatibility (mean=3.337). Students demonstrated cautiously positive attitudes (overall mean=3.2–3.5) but exhibited skill degradation anxieties (mean=3.337, SD=0.820) and divergent ethical risk perceptions (copyright concerns SD=0.878). The research identifies three core contradictions constraining AI efficacy: 1) tension between technical generality and disciplinary specificity, 2) conflict between efficiency gains and capability preservation, and 3) balance between creative freedom and ethical regulation. Students strongly advocate for structured support systems, particularly prompt engineering training (demand mean=3.49), reverse-engineering functionality optimization (mean=3.529), and integration guidance for traditional techniques (mean=3.452). The study proposes a tripartite strategy: 1) developing domain-specific AI tools with cross-platform data integration, 2) establishing a "technology-ethics-methodology" triadic curriculum module, and 3) implementing dynamic competency assessment mechanisms through blended learning to balance technological empowerment with traditional skill transmission. It warns that unchecked tool-centric pedagogy risks homogenizing design thinking and eroding critical creativity. Future research should expand cross-disciplinary comparisons and longitudinal tracking to comprehensively map AI's evolving impact on design education ecosystems .
Asamani, J. A., Alugsi, S. A., Ismaila, H., & Nabyonga-Orem, J. (2021). Balancing equity and efficiency in the allocation of health resources—where is the middle ground? Healthcare. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8536061/
Azman, Ö., & Tümkaya, S. (2025, March 14). Navigating the ethical landscape of AI integration in education: Balancing innovation and responsibility [Version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research, 14, 299. https://f1000research.com/articles/14-299
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., & Douglas, K. M. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus, 3(6), pgae191. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/6/pgae191/7689236
Castro Pena, M. L., Carballal, A., Rodríguez-Fernández, N., Santos, I., & Romero, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence applied to conceptual design: A review of its use in architecture. Automation in Construction, 124, 103550. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580521000017
Çela, E., Fonkam, M., & Mouly Potluri, R. (2024). Risks of AI-assisted learning on student critical thinking. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJRCM.350185
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
DesignWithPro. (2023). Understanding the Role of AI in Design Education. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-role-ai-design-education-designwithpro
Doe, J., & Smith, J. (2023, October 1). The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers. Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1234/56789
Dwivedi, Y. K., Sharma, A., Rana, N. P., Giannakis, M., Goel, P., & Dutot, V. (2023). Evolution of artificial intelligence research in Technological Forecasting and Social Change: Research topics, trends, and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122579. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523002640
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
GenAI Works. (2024). Meshy AI: 3D and Artificial Intelligence for Everyone. https://genai.works/courses/meshy-ai-3-d-and-artificial-intelligence-for-everyone
Gerlich, M. (2024). AI tools may weaken critical thinking skills by encouraging cognitive offloading, study suggests. Societies, 14(3), 132–147. https://www.psypost.org/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/
Gibson, D., Kovanovic, V., Ifenthaler, D., Dexter, S., & Feng, S. (2023). Learning theories for artificial intelligence promoting learning processes. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13341#
Ivccevic, Z., & Grandinetti, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence as a tool for creativity. Journal of Creativity, 34(2), 100079. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374524000050
Macnamara, B. N., Berber, I., Çavu?o?lu, M. C., Krupinski, E. A., Nallapareddy, N., Nelson, N. E., Smith, P. J., Wilson-Delfosse, A. L., & Ray, S. (2024). Does using artificial intelligence assistance accelerate skill decay and hinder skill development without performers’ awareness? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10(1), Article 572. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11239631/
MIT 6.S191. (2023). Towards AI for 3D Content Creation. https://www.classcentral.com/course/youtube-mit-6-s191-towards-ai-for-3d-content-creation-128083
Saka, A., Taiwo, R., Saka, N., Abiodun Salami, B., Ajayi, S., Akande, K., & Kazemi, H. (2024). GPT models in construction industry: Opportunities, limitations, and a use case validation. Developments in the Built Environment, 17, 100300. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666165923001825
Sreenivasan, A., & Suresh, M. (2024). Design thinking and artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review exploring synergies. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 8(3), 297–312. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096248724000201
Steidl, M., Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2023). The pipeline for the continuous development of artificial intelligence models—Current state of research and practice. Journal of Systems and Software, 199, 111615. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121223000109
Wang, D., Zhong, J., & Dong, X. (2025). Integrating Blog-Based Learning Communities into AI Course Design. Educational Sciences, 15(2), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020217
World Economic Forum. (2025). GenAI and the Future of Workforce Productivity. https://www.weforum.org/reports
Yannier, N., Koedinger, K., & Aupperlee, A. (2021). New Research Shows Learning Is More Effective When Active. Carnegie Mellon University News. https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2021/october/active-learning.html
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00254-1
Quan, W., Ya, M. S., Xin, Y. W. Z., & Xi, W. R. (2025). Study on Learning Experiences of Generative AI Tools in Stereoscopic Composition Courses: Usage Patterns, Impacts, and Challenges. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 14(2), 519–534.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode