Thijs Willems

Qian Huang, Thijs Willems, King Wang Poon

This study aims to investigate whether GPT-4 can effectively grade assignments for design university students and provide useful feedback. In design education, assignments do not have a single correct answer and often involve solving an open-ended design problem. This subjective nature of design projects often leads to grading problems,as grades can vary between different raters,for instance instructor from engineering background or architecture background. This study employs an iterative research approach in developing a Custom GPT with the aim of achieving more reliable results and testing whether it can provide design students with constructive feedback. The findings include: First,through several rounds of iterations the inter-reliability between GPT and human raters reached a level that is generally accepted by educators. This indicates that by providing accurate prompts to GPT,and continuously iterating to build a Custom GPT, it can be used to effectively grade students' design assignments, serving as a reliable complement to human raters. Second, the intra-reliability of GPT's scoring at different times is between 0.65 and 0.78. This indicates that, with adequate instructions, a Custom GPT gives consistent results which is a precondition for grading students. As consistency and comparability are the two main rules to ensure the reliability of educational assessment, this study has looked at whether a Custom GPT can be developed that adheres to these two rules. We finish the paper by testing whether Custom GPT can provide students with useful feedback and reflecting on how educators can develop and iterate a Custom GPT to serve as a complementary rater.

Thijs Willems, Sumbul Khan, Qian Huang et al.

This pilot study traces students' reflections on the use of AI in a 13-week foundational design course enrolling over 500 first-year engineering and architecture students at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. The course was an AI-enhanced design course, with several interventions to equip students with AI based design skills. Students were required to reflect on whether the technology was used as a tool (instrumental assistant), a teammate (collaborative partner), or neither (deliberate non-use). By foregrounding this three-way lens, students learned to use AI for innovation rather than just automation and to reflect on agency, ethics, and context rather than on prompt crafting alone. Evidence stems from coursework artefacts: thirteen structured reflection spreadsheets and eight illustrated briefs submitted, combined with notes of teachers and researchers. Qualitative coding of these materials reveals shared practices brought about through the inclusion of Gen-AI, including accelerated prototyping, rapid skill acquisition, iterative prompt refinement, purposeful "switch-offs" during user research, and emergent routines for recognizing hallucinations. Unexpectedly, students not only harnessed Gen-AI for speed but (enabled by the tool-teammate-neither triage) also learned to reject its outputs, invent their own hallucination fire-drills, and divert the reclaimed hours into deeper user research, thereby transforming efficiency into innovation. The implications of the approach we explore shows that: we can transform AI uptake into an assessable design habit; that rewarding selective non-use cultivates hallucination-aware workflows; and, practically, that a coordinated bundle of tool access, reflection, role tagging, and public recognition through competition awards allows AI based innovation in education to scale without compromising accountability.