Student experiences with GenAI in design thinking fall into four themes: perceived benefits, ethical concerns, hesitance and acceptance, and critical validation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Thematic analysis of student reflections revealed four key themes: Perceived Benefits (enhanced creativity and accessibility), Ethical Concerns (bias and authorship ambiguity), Hesitance & Acceptance (evolution from scepticism to strategic adoption), and Critical Validation (development of epistemic vigilance). → Rana 2025

Evidence¶

Rana 2025¶

Rana, V., Verhoeven, B., & Sharma, M. (2025). Generative AI in Design Thinking Pedagogy: Enhancing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Ethical Reasoning in Higher Education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.53761/tjse2f36

q2 · i? · qualitative · r1

Qualitative thematic analysis of 112 student reflections from the 12-week course; the study reports that "Thematic analysis revealed four key themes" spanning benefits, ethics, acceptance, and validation. No effect size applies.

"Thematic analysis revealed four key themes: Perceived Benefits (enhanced creativity and accessibility), Ethical Concerns (bias and authorship ambiguity), Hesitance & Acceptance (evolution from scepticism to strategic adoption), and Critical Validation (development of epistemic vigilance)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students raised ethical concerns about GenAI-assisted data comic creation, most frequently misinformation, bias, ownership, and reduced trustworthiness — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Experimental-group students detected AI errors and enacted verification and ethical self-regulation as routine practices — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Qualitative themes: efficiency and peer influence drive AI use, while confidence and rule ambiguity shape students' perceptions of dependence — related
• Students' main AI challenges are content reliability and depth, and most expect AI to serve as tutor, creative partner, and critical thinking partner rather than mere content generator — related
• Nursing academics hold divergent attitudes toward GenAI, from scepticism to pragmatic acceptance, and worry it may replace rather than support student learning — related
• Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
• Sentiment toward GenAI in the course was 86% positive overall, while ethical concerns generated 62% negative sentiment — related
• Perceived learning benefits are higher when GenAI augments students' capabilities and lower when it hurts critical thinking or causes stress — related
• Source provenance labels functioned as a seal of authority: 11 of 12 participants failed to detect a planted source-card mismatch — related
• Journalism students already use GenAI strategically but hold deep concerns about accuracy, originality and disclosure — related
• Post-interaction reflections reveal four preference themes: AI as formative learning aid, preference for human authority, conditional acceptance, and skepticism about educational impact — related
• AI-augmented instructional design creates tensions between generative affordances and student agency, identity, and academic integrity — related
• A student maintained critical distance from GenAI outputs through a paradoxical trust in their untrustworthiness, deriving practical value while staying sceptical
• Interviews revealed six themes: enhanced efficiency, improved quality, facilitated reflection, increased interaction, improved collaboration, and concerns about over-reliance — related
• Only about a third of design students report reduced creativity or project ownership from GenAI use — related
• Reduced engagement with GenAI feedback functionalities was attributed to a mismatch between GenAI outputs and student expectations — related
• Students perceive peer assessment-based game development as fostering deep learning in in-depth thinking, creativity and motivation — related
• The authors argue that analyzing power imbalances, misshapen structures, and hidden assumptions are familiar critical thinking tasks for hesitant readers — related
• Primary studies report possible benefits of GenAI for children's divergent thinking, narrative creativity and creative self-efficacy, without confirmed efficacy — related
• Students evolved from passive users of GenAI to critical evaluators, developing strategies for bias detection and source validation — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)