The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into creative practices raises discussion about how design education can continue to develop creative and critical thinking skills. Project-based learning (PBL) grounded in Herrington’s Authentic Learning framework helps design students’ experience real-world contexts that mirror professional creative practice. However, effectiveness when supported by AI tools remains underexplored. This study investigates how AI-integrated authentic project-based learning, scaffolded through a structured AI dialogue approach based on the Devil’s Advocate Reflective Thinking Framework (D.A.R.T. Framework). A convergent mixed-methods design was employed to 53 undergraduate students enrolled in a Design Management course in Indonesia. Drawing on a validated Likert-scale survey, individual reflection papers, and peer assessment scores, the 17-item AI-Integrated Authentic Learning Scale (AI-ALS) demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s ? = 0.949); students rated AI scaffolding and autonomy highest (D4, M = 4.29) and real-world AI application lowest (D1, M = 3.68). Qualitative analysis of reflection papers identified communication as the dominant coding category (366 occurrences), while conflict management was the least represented (32 occurrences), indicating a significant tendency toward conflict avoidance. Peer assessment scores were uniformly positive (all items M > 4.20), supporting the survey finding that AI functioned as a creative scaffold rather than a replacement for student agency, provided that lecturer scaffolding guided students’ engagement with AI and prevented uncritical reliance on AI-generated outputs. These findings offer practical implications for design educators and curriculum developers seeking to integrate generative AI as a pedagogical scaffold that supports, rather than replaces, students’ creative agency and higher-order thinking skills in preparation for professional practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Indriati et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: