AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A
Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design
Students
Sophie Schauer
1 a
, Katharina Simbeck
1 b
and Niels Pinkwart
2 c
1
HTW University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany
2
Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Keywords:
Generative AI, Higher Education, AI Literacy, Attitudes Towards AI, AI in Design Studies, Design Education.
Abstract:
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has expanded its role in design processes, making it essential for design
students to develop the skills needed to navigate AI’s opportunities while also critically reflecting on its risks.
We used a two-part quantitative and qualitative survey to understand the attitudes of communication and
architectural design students towards AI and assess their AI literacy. Students expressed positive and negative
viewpoints on AI and rated their AI literacy skills as moderate. We find that design students are very aware of
AI’s potential for enhancing productivity and acknowledge downsides such as decreased creativity, job losses,
and copyright concerns. They identified the competency gaps in the use of specific AI technologies and ethical
considerations. We therefore argue for the structured integration of AI competencies in design curricula.
1 INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence has become an important tech-
nological part of design processes (Lin and Liu,
2024). For creative professions such as graphic de-
sign, a full replacement by AI seems unlikely (Hoque,
2024). In the most likely scenario, human designers
will be essential for managing the design process and
making key decisions, while AI enhances their pro-
ductivity and capabilities (Irbite and Strode, 2021).
Designers are concerned about the potential loss of
ownership and creativity when using generative AI
(Inie et al., 2023).
AI literacy has become an essential skill, simi-
lar to traditional literacy and mathematical abilities,
which are the foundation for participation in the job
market and civil life (Ng et al., 2021). Alongside this
growing need for AI literacy, attitudes towards AI are
equally important in shaping how these technologies
are embraced or resisted (Marrone et al., 2022).
To study AI literacy and attitudes towards AI of
design students, survey participants were recruited
from two higher education formats in communication
and architectural design at a German and Italian uni-
a
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3350-7803
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6792-461X
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7076-9737
versity. Although AI technologies are not typically
part of communication design or architecture curric-
ula, many practical use cases can be found throughout
their studies (Schauer and Simbeck, 2024). Our sur-
vey results highlighted the need to integrate AI liter-
acy in design education and revealed knowledge gaps
and questions among students.
2 AI IN DESIGN
Design processes are often illustrated as an inter-
play between problem and solution. This interplay
involves three main activities in a non-linear order:
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Lawson, 2006).
Expert designers usually create a unique path in their
design process shaped by their experiences and priori-
ties. The resulting design is thereby influenced by the
choices and the priorities they establish (Daly et al.,
2012).
Generative AI can be a valuable tool throughout
the entire design process (Verganti et al., 2020; Thor-
ing et al., 2023), it can simplify design processes
by automating and assisting in transforming concepts
into tangible products (Furtado et al., 2024) and eval-
uating creative output (Cetinic and She, 2022). How-
ever, there are concerns about losing the human touch
464
Schauer, S., Simbeck, K. and Pinkwart, N.
AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design Students.
DOI: 10.5220/0013338100003932
Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 1, pages 464-471
ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026
Proceedings Copyright © 2025 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

and creativity (Karaata, 2018) and creating an overre-
liance on these tools (Popescu and Schut, 2023).
In the analysis phase, AI can assist designers by
gathering and processing data to identify design pat-
terns, current trends, and user needs (Shi et al., 2023).
During the synthesis phase, AI tools help by brain-
storming ideas and generating design concepts based
on criteria set by the designer (Shi et al., 2023; Berni
et al., 2024). Further, automating repetitive tasks
such as image editing and layout adjustments en-
hances efficiency and allows designers to spend more
time on creative tasks (Lin and Liu, 2024; Gallardo-
Rodriguez et al., 2023; Furtado et al., 2024). AI can
also aid in creating prototypes and visualisations, en-
abling designers to efficiently experiment with differ-
ent ideas through various iterations (Shi et al., 2023).
AI can be critical in testing and refining design solu-
tions in the evaluation phase. It can assess user in-
teractions and provide feedback on usability and user
experience (Shi et al., 2023).
Creativity is defined as ”the ability to come up
with ideas or artefacts that are new, surprising, and
valuable” (Boden, 2007). Human-AI co-creation,
describes the use of AI technology in creative pro-
cesses where humans and AI collaborate and support
each other’s strengths (Suh et al., 2024). This in-
cludes (1) human-AI co-creation, where AI enhances
human creativity; (2) human-only creativity, consid-
ered a mark of ’true’ creativity; (3) blind reliance on
AI, leading to plagiarism; and (4) AI potentially di-
minishing human creativity by undermining individu-
als’ motivation and self-concept of creativity (Ivcevic
and Grandinetti, 2024; Vinchon et al., 2023). Due
to its increasing use in creative tasks, a shift from
human-centred creativity to co-creativity, or ”gener-
ative synesthesia,” a blend of human exploration and
AI exploitation (Zhou and Lee, 2024), seems likely
(Wingstr
¨
om et al., 2024).
In architectural design, AI is already demonstrat-
ing its capacity to revolutionise practice. AI provides
extensive data processing capabilities for visualisa-
tion and prototype production (Ceylan, 2021; Rane
et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024). One example of the po-
tential use of generative AI in architecture is the text-
to-image AI tool Midjourney, which finds uses for ar-
chitectural visualisation. It supports creative thinking
by generating images based on prompted keywords
for easy and quick visualisation of concepts and spa-
tial ideas (Tan and Luhrs, 2024). However, these gen-
erative AI platforms still face difficulties with com-
plex prompts, typically because they lack a deep se-
mantic understanding of the image content (Ploennigs
and Berger, 2023).
Several AI integration points in design study cur-
ricula, such as design law and ethics classes, design
foundation, or material and sustainability, have been
identified. However, AI has not yet been incorpo-
rated systematically (Schauer and Simbeck, 2024).
Key challenges when integrating AI into design ed-
ucation include overcoming the initial learning curve
for students unfamiliar with technology, preserving
artistic originality within AI-generated templates, and
addressing ethical concerns related to authorship and
ownership (Omran Zailuddin et al., 2024). An at-
tempt to integrate AI into the architecture curriculum
was made as an elective course in two universities
(Bas¸arır, 2021). The course emphasised AI’s poten-
tial to enhance architectural practice and its impact
on architectural education (Bas¸arır, 2021).
Given AI’s expanding role in design processes it is
crucial to examine the AI literacy of design students
to tailor higher education curricula to meet the needs
of future designers.
3 AI LITERACY
AI literacy describes the skills that empower individ-
uals to critically assess AI technologies, effectively
interact and collaborate with AI, and utilise AI as a
tool (Long and Magerko, 2020). It requires an un-
derstanding of the technical concepts and the ability
to apply them in real-world situations and integrate
them with other thinking skills, such as creativity and
evaluation (Ng et al., 2024). AI literacy and AI ed-
ucation has been extensively investigated at all levels
of education, from K-12 (Wang and Lester, 2023) to
higher and adult education (Laupichler et al., 2022).
AI literacy assessment instruments are crucial for
evaluating the effectiveness of AI education programs
and comparing AI literacy across different groups. AI
literacy can be split into three main dimensions: Tech-
nical Understanding, Critical Appraisal and Practi-
cal Application (Laupichler et al., 2023). Technical
Understanding includes abilities related to AI’s data-
driven aspects and theoretical foundations. Critical
Appraisal encompasses skills for ethically evaluating
AI, assessing the outcomes of AI applications, and
addressing legal concerns. Practical Application cap-
tures competencies involving the practical use of AI,
such as identifying examples of AI applications and
determining whether an application uses AI technol-
ogy. To measure these domains, Laupichler et al. in-
troduced a tool called the ”Scale for Non-Experts’ As-
sessment of AI Literacy” (SNAIL) (Laupichler et al.,
2023).
AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design Students
465

Another AI literacy scale proposed by Soto-
Sanfiel et al. comprises competencies across four
categories: ”(1) What is AI? (a: Recogni[s]ing AI,
Understanding Intelligence and Interdisciplinarity; b:
General vs Narrow AI); (2) What can AI do?; (3)
How does AI work?; and (4) How should AI be
used?” (Soto-Sanfiel et al., 2024). These categories
aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of AI lit-
eracy, covering recognition, understanding, function-
ality, and ethical usage of AI.
The AI literacy of students across disciplines
shows a predictable pattern, with engineering students
leading in AI knowledge, followed by those in other
STEM fields and social sciences (Hornberger et al.,
2023). L
´
erias et al. assessed AI literacy among teach-
ers at a Portuguese Polytechnic university, finding an
average score of 3.28 on a 5-point Likert scale, indi-
cating moderate literacy. While proficiency in apply-
ing and using AI was relatively high (3.85), signifi-
cant gaps were found in understanding how AI learns
and the influence of data on its behaviours (2.86)
(L
´
erias et al., 2024). This reveals a critical gap in
foundational knowledge, even among educators.
AI literacy needs to be promoted also among non-
technical audiences (Southworth et al., 2023). The
demand for AI skills has increased in most profes-
sional fields. However, despite its increasing rele-
vance there remains a notable lack of research on AI
literacy within non-technical disciplines, particularly
design education. Therefore, in this paper, we will
address the following research questions:
• RQ1: What is the level of AI literacy among de-
sign students?
• RQ2: Where do design students have ”literacy
gaps” that must be addressed in higher education?
The general attitude towards AI technologies dif-
fers between countries. AI positivity was mea-
sured through statements such as ”Much of society
will benefit from a future full of Artificial Intelli-
gence” and was found to be highest in Finland, fol-
lowed by Poland, Italy, Germany, Ireland, and France
(Bergdahl et al., 2023). Further, feeling competent
and connected when engaging with new technologies
is linked to more positive attitudes towards them, par-
ticularly concerning AI (Bergdahl et al., 2023).
University students’ attitudes towards AI have
been researched with mixed results. Students appre-
ciate AI’s potential for increasing efficiency but were
also concerned about its impact on learning quality
and academic integrity (Fo
ˇ
sner, 2024). Generally, stu-
dents with a stronger understanding of AI held more
favourable views on integrating it into their academic
practices. Students with limited understanding were
more apprehensive (Marrone et al., 2022). One study
analysed students’ attitudes in three categories: cog-
nitive, affective, and behavioural. The affective com-
ponent, with statements like ”AI is related to my life”,
was ranked highest (Suh and Ahn, 2022), showing a
positive attitude towards AI, especially when a con-
nection to the student’s personal life can be made.
Meanwhile, the cognitive component, with statements
such as ”I want to work in the field of AI”, had the
lowest score. Multiple studies have focused on AI at-
titudes of students in the healthcare and medical field
(Y
¨
uzbas¸ıo
˘
glu, 2021; Pinto dos Santos et al., 2019),
but a literature gap remains regarding how students in
the design field perceive AI. Addressing the literature
gap, our paper aims to explore the following research
question:
• RQ3: What attitudes do design students have to-
wards AI?
4 METHODOLOGY
An AI literacy survey has been carried out at a uni-
versity in Germany and Italy. Both student groups
filled out a questionnaire to assess their AI literacy.
They were first provided text fields to share their gen-
eral opinions on AI and to specify the AI topics they
were most interested in. The qualitative questionnaire
was chosen to collect different aspects of AI interests,
thereby addressing research questions two and three.
The second half contained items from the SNAIL
tool (Laupichler et al., 2023) on a 5-point Likert scale.
The questionnaire captures AI competencies, espe-
cially for non-technical respondents, and will answer
research questions one and two. 15 were selected to
focus on the most relevant questions in the Critical
Appraisal and Practical Application categories.
The first survey group consisted of 14 participants
recruited from the communication design program at
the HTW Berlin University of Applied Sciences. Four
of them identified as male and ten as female. They
were between 20 and 31 years old. A second group
with 13 participants was recruited in the following
semester. Here, three identified as male, nine as fe-
male and one did not indicate a gender. They were
aged between 19 and 29 years.
A second group of participants was recruited from
architectural design at the University of Florence. 35
people participated, ranging in age from 21 to 33, and
one person being 67. Ten identified as male, 24 as
female, and one as non-binary.
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
466

5 FINDINGS
The survey results were analysed using a mixed meth-
ods approach. Qualitative responses were evaluated
using the grounded theory method to identify codes
in the recurring responses. Quantitative data were sta-
tistically evaluated using the median test to compare
the differences between groups and the Levene test to
compare variances.
5.1 Communication Design Students
5.1.1 General Opinion on AI
Some participants view AI as a beneficial tool, with
several respondents describing it as ”very useful”.
However, there are concerns about the rapid pace of
AI development, with one respondent warning that it
”can [...] be seen critically” and another emphasising
that ”what is done with AI and how it is used always
depends on human actions”. One student remarked,
”I’m quite open to the whole topic” while also stating
they ”often find it overrated. Not every product needs
to have AI integrated”.
Several respondents see AI as a way to improve
productivity and efficiency in various tasks. One par-
ticipant believes AI is ”a helpful tool to speed up work
processes”, while another states that AI can ”greatly
simplify our daily lives”. Another positive viewpoint
is that AI will increasingly gain value in society, and
”we should learn to use it and apply it for our well-
being”. However, the same respondent also acknowl-
edges a downside, predicting that ”in the future, our
brain structures will change because we will use AI
for certain things like writing, calculating, etc”.
Concerns about job losses and ethical issues also
surface. One participant finds AI ”interesting but also
scary”, particularly regarding potential job losses.
Another student states it is ”critical in terms of deal-
ing with intellectual property”.
5.1.2 AI Fields of Interest
Participants mentioned that they are currently inter-
ested in ”AI in art/design” and the ”use in social and
private contexts, impact on society” and ”AI in mu-
seums”. Several participants were particularly inter-
ested in the creative and professional applications of
AI. For example, ”image generation” and ”generative
AI, AI for supporting everyday applications, artistic
implementation/use of AI” were mentioned. Addi-
tionally, one respondent expressed a desire to under-
stand ”how AI works and how [they] can develop
[their] own [AI model]”.
The capabilities of AI and its future potential were
also common themes. One participant wanted to ex-
plore ”what AI can do currently and where it can
go”, ”how to use AI efficiently”, and ”what AI tools
are available now”. Another participant noted the
importance of knowing the ”boundaries of AI” and
”discrimination within AI”, highlighting the need for
technical understanding and limitations of AI. In gen-
eral, ethical and legal considerations were significant
topics among the respondents. Many emphasise the
”advantages, disadvantages, development, potential”,
and ”perspectives/dangers of AI”. One participant
specifically mentioned the ”development of the le-
gal situation of AI-generated content”, indicating an
awareness of the evolving legal aspects surrounding
AI. Lastly, some respondents focused on the technical
parts of AI and data privacy. They expressed interest
in ”large language models and how they are structured
and trained” and ”data protection”.
5.1.3 AI Literacy
Students feel most confident about giving AI exam-
ples from their daily lives, with an average confi-
dence level of 4.5. They also express significant con-
fidence in critically evaluating the implications of AI
(4.07) and explaining why data plays an important
role (4.15). A moderate confidence level was shown
when assessing if a problem in their field can and
should be solved with AI methods (3.59) and criti-
cally reflecting on the potential impact of AI on indi-
viduals and society (3.74). They are also fairly confi-
dent in naming examples of technical AI applications
(3.93), naming weaknesses of AI (3.78), and identi-
fying ethical issues (4.04). They also feel somewhat
less confident in explaining AI’s importance (3.67)
compared to other areas. The areas where students
feel the least confident include describing what AI
generally is (3.41), describing legal problems sur-
rounding AI (3.33), telling if the technologies they
use are supported by AI (3.22), explaining why hu-
mans play an important role in the development of AI
systems (3.59), and naming natural language process-
ing/understanding applications (2.48).
5.2 Architectural Design Students
5.2.1 General Opinion on AI
Many students acknowledged AI’s general useful-
ness, with one noting ”I like artificial intelligence and
I believe it’s very useful to the future, especially in
our field of work”. Similarly, a participant remarked
that it could ”make some processes faster and eas-
ier”, while another student emphasised AI’s potential
AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design Students
467

to ”change the world, especially in the way of work-
ing”.
Several students highlighted the importance of
adapting to AI as a natural progression. One student
stated that it ”is a natural consequence of progress”
and that people ”should learn to live with this new
reality and not reject it”. Another participant echoed
this sentiment, stating that it ”is an instrument to make
our lives easier and help us to do things faster”.
The survey also revealed concerns about AI’s im-
pact on society and individual creativity. One student
expressed that AI ”facilitates the creation of concepts
but also limits creativity”, and another warned that
they might ”start to forget to use [their] own mind”.
Generally, students viewed AI positively, seeing it as
a crucial advancement with remarks such as ”AI is
generally very important and useful both in today’s
life and in professional experience” and ”it is human’s
future, and AI can dramatically improve human capa-
bilities”.
Table 1: Mentions of codes during the qualitative survey of
general opinion on AI by communication design (CD) and
architectural design (AD) students.
Codes CD AD
Helpful/Useful Tool 13 19
Societal Value 1 8
Ethical Issues & Risks 3 4
Future Development 4 3
Limiting Creativity - 4
Neutral or Mixed Feelings 2 2
Need for Regulation 2 1
Intellectual Property Issues 2 -
Job Loss Concern 2 -
5.2.2 AI Fields of Interest
Some participants emphasised AI’s role in creative
fields such as architecture and design, with one stat-
ing that they ”would like to know more about the arti-
ficial intelligence linked to construction and architec-
ture” and that it is ”interesting also for the world of
medicine”. This highlights a dual interest in AI’s po-
tential applications in both creative and practical do-
mains. Others were intrigued by AI’s capabilities in
generating and manipulating digital content. For in-
stance, one respondent mentioned how ”AI generates
images by describing a few words or how AI gener-
ates codes”, reflecting a curiosity about AI’s creative
potential in digital arts and 3D modelling applica-
tions. Additionally, participants expressed interest in
AI’s impact on education and its potential to enhance
learning processes, noting they are interested ”in the
application of AI in the museum and [...] education”.
Table 2: Mentions of codes during the qualitative survey
of AI fields of interest by communication design (CD) and
architectural design (AD) students.
Codes
CD AD
Image, Video & Text Generation 11 9
Art and Design 5 6
Social Impact & Ethical Concerns 8 3
Architecture - 10
Medical Field 4 5
Technical Understanding 5 4
Automation & Everyday Applications 5 2
Music 4 1
Education & Museums 2 2
Personal Digital Assistant 1 3
Legal Aspects 1 -
Gaming - 1
3D Modelling - 1
5.2.3 AI Literacy
The architectural design students demonstrate mod-
erate confidence across different AI competencies.
They feel quite confident in explaining why AI has
become increasingly important (3.60) and in critically
reflecting on the potential impact of AI on individuals
and society (3.91).
Students are also confident in giving everyday AI
examples (3.40) and naming examples of technical
applications (3.63). Students show a fair level of con-
fidence (3.66) when describing risks associated with
using AI systems. They feel slightly less confident
in assessing AI solutions for problems or (3.31) and
explaining the role of data in AI development and ap-
plication (3.29).
Furthermore, students report confidence in their
ability to describe why humans play an important role
in developing AI systems (3.69) and in naming weak-
nesses of AI (3.49). Understanding the potential le-
gal problems that may arise when using AI (3.22),
identifying ethical issues surrounding AI (3.14), and
their ability to tell if the technologies they use are
supported by AI (3.34) are areas where confidence is
somewhat lower. The lowest confidence lies in nam-
ing natural language processing/understanding appli-
cations (3.06).
6 DISCUSSION
The findings indicate that communication design stu-
dents see AI as a helpful and useful tool (13 men-
tions) and focused on positive aspects (e.g. increased
efficiency), but also mentioned negative aspects (e.g.
job losses and intellectual property concerns). Stu-
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
468

dents were interested in AI uses in a creative and pro-
fessional context, such as media and text generation
(11 mention), art/design (5 mentions) and understand-
ing the social impact and ethical implications (8 men-
tions).
Architectural design students acknowledge AI’s
usefulness (19 mentions) in speeding up processes
and view it as a natural progression of technologi-
cal advancement while expressing concerns about the
impact on creativity and individual thinking (4 men-
tions), in line with creativity loss found in current
literature (Marrone et al., 2022; Barile et al., 2022).
Students were positive about AI’s societal value (8
mentions) but were aware of ethical issues and risks
(4 mentions). They voiced interest in AI’s applica-
tion in architecture (10 mentions) and medicine (5
mentions), as well as the capabilities for generating
digital content and texts (9 mentions). This interest
highlights AI’s potential for architectural design, es-
pecially in visualising and prototyping (Ceylan, 2021;
Rane et al., 2023; Tan and Luhrs, 2024). Compared
to communication design students, they placed less
emphasis on ethical and legal issues (3 mentions) and
focused more on practical applications in their field.
These differences could be attributed to their field
of study (communication or architectural design) or
their country of residence (Italy or Germany), as at-
titudes towards AI tend to be more positive in Italy
compared to Germany (Bergdahl et al., 2023).
The results indicate that although communication
and architectural design students have similar over-
all confidence levels in their AI literacy, there are nu-
anced differences in their specific competencies. De-
spite the growing importance of AI, they feel only
moderately confident in their competencies for criti-
cal appraisal and practical application of AI technol-
ogy. Communication design students expressed high
confidence in practical applications of AI, particularly
in providing examples of how they use AI technolo-
gies. Architectural design students were most confi-
dent in reflecting on AI’s societal impact, focusing on
critical appraisal competencies. This contrasts with
their stated areas of interest: communication design
students frequently mentioned ethical and societal im-
plications, i.e. critical appraisal and architectural de-
sign students focused more on practical applications.
This suggests that students might be more interested
in learning about areas where they feel less confident,
as their curiosity aligns with the knowledge gaps they
perceive in their expertise.
Both groups demonstrated the lowest confidence
in naming natural language processing (NLP) exam-
ples. This points to an overall literacy gap in more
advanced AI applications, such as NLP, which may
Figure 1: AI literacy survey results with a confidence level
of 3.68 for communication design and 3.41 for architectural
design.
not yet be integrated into their areas of study or daily
lives.
The independent t-test finds no statistically sig-
nificant difference in the means of the two groups
(p = 0.077). The result of a Levene’s test indicated
no statistically significant difference in variances ei-
ther, with a p-value of 0.117. However, communica-
tion design students visibly showed greater variability
in their confidence levels (ranging from 2.48 to 4.5),
whereas architectural design students had more con-
sistent confidence levels (ranging from 3.06 to 3.91).
Compared to architectural design students, who may
have more consistent exposure to technical problem
solving, communication design spans across different
areas such as marketing, digital media, and product
design. Therefore, students might have varying de-
grees of familiarity with AI technologies.
The findings reveal a strong interest among stu-
dents in applying AI technologies to their design prac-
tices, echoing the survey results of Spanish students in
business management (Almaraz-L
´
opez et al., 2023).
Both our results and those of Almaraz-L
´
opez et al. in-
dicate that while AI’s impact is undeniable, students’
current knowledge is limited, largely due to insuffi-
cient education.
Literacy gaps related to legal and ethical issues
were identified, as well as a gap in recognising and
understanding specific AI technologies.Incorporating
AI’s ethical implications, legal frameworks, and tech-
nical applications within design curricula will en-
hance students’ competencies and align with their
expressed interests. This could be integrated into
existing design modules, such as design laws and
ethics and design technologies taken from an exem-
plary communication design curriculum in Germany
(Schauer and Simbeck, 2024).
AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design Students
469

7 CONCLUSION
This study examined AI literacy and attitudes towards
AI among design students and identified key literacy
gaps. Students value AI for enhancing productivity
in creative tasks and recognise that AI is transforming
design processes. Communication design students fo-
cus on the ethical and legal implications, while archi-
tectural design students express concerns about AI’s
impact on creativity and independent thinking. De-
spite acknowledging AI’s significance, both groups
demonstrated only moderate confidence in their AI
literacy, with notable strengths and weaknesses.
The relatively small sample size restrict the gen-
eralisability of the findings. Student self-assessments
may not accurately reflect their actual competencies,
as confidence and perceptions can bias the results.
Furthermore, the SNAIL tool used to assess AI lit-
eracy lacks cross-cultural validation (Lintner, 2024).
Cultural and institutional differences between univer-
sities in Germany and Italy may also influence student
perceptions and engagement with AI literacy.
Design students show a clear interest in AI and
recognise its importance and potential for change;
however, only little research has focused on AI liter-
acy and competencies in non-STEM fields. Our study
suggests that these insights could also apply to other
creative domains, such as art and media studies, mark-
ing an area for future research. Ultimately, enhancing
AI literacy among non-STEM students by integrating
specific AI competencies into their curricula will en-
sure that graduates are well-equipped for their profes-
sional and creative careers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted as part of the KIWI project
(16DHBKI071), which was funded by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
We thank the students who participated in the survey.
REFERENCES
Almaraz-L
´
opez, C., Almaraz-Men
´
endez, F., and L
´
opez-
Esteban, C. (2023). Comparative Study of the Atti-
tudes and Perceptions of University Students in Busi-
ness Administration and Management and in Educa-
tion toward Artificial Intelligence. Education Sci-
ences, 13(6):609.
Barile, S., Bassano, C., Piciocchi, P., Vito, P., Spohrer,
J. C., et al. (2022). Algorithms and Human Creativ-
ity: Threats or Opportunities? A Literature Review.
AHFE INTERNATIONAL, 62:237–249.
Bas¸arır, L. (2021). Modelling AI in architectural education.
Gazi University Journal of Science, 35(4):1260–1278.
Bergdahl, J., Latikka, R., Celuch, M., Savolainen, I., Man-
tere, E. S., Savela, N., and Oksanen, A. (2023). Self-
determination and attitudes toward artificial intelli-
gence: Cross-national and longitudinal perspectives.
Telematics and Informatics, 82:102013.
Berni, A., Borgianni, Y., Rotini, F., Gonc¸alves, M., and
Thoring, K. (2024). Stimulating design ideation with
artificial intelligence: present and (short-term) future.
Proceedings of the Design Society, 4:1939–1948.
Boden, M. A. (2007). Creativity in a nutshell. Think,
5(15):83–96.
Cetinic, E. and She, J. (2022). Understanding and creating
art with AI: Review and outlook. ACM Transactions
on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Ap-
plications (TOMM), 18(2):1–22.
Ceylan, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in Architec-
ture: An Educational Perspective. In Proceedings of
the 13th International Conference on Computer Sup-
ported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,, pages 100–
107. INSTICC, SciTePress.
Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., and Bodner, G. M. (2012). What
does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of
design professionals’ experiences. Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 101(2):187–219.
Fo
ˇ
sner, A. (2024). University Students’ Attitudes and
Perceptions towards AI Tools: Implications for
Sustainable Educational Practices. Sustainability,
16(19):8668.
Furtado, L. S., Soares, J. B., and Furtado, V. (2024). A
task-oriented framework for generative AI in design.
Journal of Creativity, 34(2):100086.
Gallardo-Rodriguez, S., Le
´
on-Mart
´
ınez, J. A., Arias, A.
I. C., and Jimenez Rodriguez, L. A. (2023). Artificial
Intelligence And Graphic Design Creating The Class-
room Of The Future.
Hoque, F. (2024). Does Artificial Intelligence have the
Possibility of Taking Over Designers’ Jobs in the Fu-
ture. International Journal of Science and Business,
31(1):26–35.
Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., and Nerdel, C. (2023).
What do university students know about Artificial In-
telligence? Development and validation of an AI lit-
eracy test. Computers and Education: Artificial Intel-
ligence, 5:100165.
Inie, N., Falk, J., and Tanimoto, S. (2023). Designing Par-
ticipatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Ex-
pectations about Generative AI. In Extended Abstracts
of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, pages 1–8.
Irbite, A. and Strode, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence vs
designer: The impact of artificial intelligence on de-
sign practice. In SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDU-
CATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific
Conference, volume 4, pages 539–549.
Ivcevic, Z. and Grandinetti, M. (2024). Artificial intelli-
gence as a tool for creativity. Journal of Creativity,
page 100079.
Karaata, E. (2018). Usage of artificial intelligence in today’s
graphic design. Online Journal of Art & Design, 6(4).
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
470

Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Haverkamp, N., and Raupach,
T. (2023). Development of the “scale for the assess-
ment of non-experts’ AI literacy”–An exploratory fac-
tor analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports,
12:100338.
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., and Raupach, T.
(2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and
adult education: A scoping literature review. Comput-
ers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3:100101.
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Routledge.
L
´
erias, E., Guerra, C., and Ferreira, P. (2024). Literacy in
Artificial Intelligence as a Challenge for Teaching in
Higher Education: A Case Study at Portalegre Poly-
technic University. Information, 15(4):205.
Li, P., Li, B., and Li, Z. (2024). Sketch-to-Architecture:
Generative AI-aided Architectural Design. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2403.20186.
Lin, Y. and Liu, H. (2024). The impact of artificial intelli-
gence generated content driven graphic design tools
on creative thinking of designers. In International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages
258–272. Springer.
Lintner, T. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy
scales. npj Science of Learning, 9(1):50.
Long, D. and Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy?
Competencies and design considerations. In Proceed-
ings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in
computing systems, pages 1–16.
Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., and Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and
artificial intelligence—A student perspective. Journal
of Intelligence, 10(3):65.
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., and Qiao, M. S.
(2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory
review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelli-
gence, 2:100041.
Ng, D. T. K., Xinyu, C., Leung, J. K. L., and Chu, S. K. W.
(2024). Fostering students’ AI literacy development
through educational games: AI knowledge, affective
and cognitive engagement. Journal of Computer As-
sisted Learning.
Omran Zailuddin, M. F. N., Nik Harun, N. A., Ab-
dul Rahim, H. A., Kamaruzaman, A. F., Berahim,
M. H., Harun, M. H., and Ibrahim, Y. (2024). Re-
defining creative education: a case study analysis of
AI in design courses. Journal of Research in Innova-
tive Teaching & Learning.
Pinto dos Santos, D., Giese, D., Brodehl, S., Chon, S.-H.,
Staab, W., Kleinert, R., Maintz, D., and Baeßler, B.
(2019). Medical students’ attitude towards artificial
intelligence: a multicentre survey. European radiol-
ogy, 29:1640–1646.
Ploennigs, J. and Berger, M. (2023). AI art in architecture.
AI in Civil Engineering, 2(1):8.
Popescu, A.-R. and Schut, A. (2023). Generative AI in cre-
ative design processes: a dive into possible cognitive
biases. In IASDR 2023: Life-Changing Design.
Rane, N., Choudhary, S., and Rane, J. (2023). Integrating
ChatGPT, Bard, and leading-edge generative artificial
intelligence in architectural design and engineering:
applications, framework, and challenges. SSRN Elec-
tronic Journal.
Schauer, S. and Simbeck, K. (2024). AI Literacy for Cul-
tural and Design Studies. In CSEDU (2), pages 39–50.
Shi, Y., Gao, T., Jiao, X., and Cao, N. (2023). Under-
standing design collaboration between designers and
artificial intelligence: a systematic literature review.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inter-
action, 7(CSCW2):1–35.
Soto-Sanfiel, M. T., Angulo-Brunet, A., and Lutz, C.
(2024). The Scale of Artificial Intelligence Literacy
for all (SAIL4ALL): A Tool for Assessing Knowledge
on Artificial Intelligence in All Adult Populations and
Settings.
Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Reed, D., Mc-
Carty, C., Brendemuhl, J., Thomas, A., et al. (2023).
Developing a model for AI Across the curriculum:
Transforming the higher education landscape via in-
novation in AI literacy. Computers and Education:
Artificial Intelligence, 4:100127.
Suh, S., Chen, M., Min, B., Li, T. J.-J., and Xia, H.
(2024). Luminate: Structured Generation and Explo-
ration of Design Space with Large Language Models
for Human-AI Co-Creation. In Proceedings of the
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-
tems, pages 1–26.
Suh, W. and Ahn, S. (2022). Development and validation
of a scale measuring student attitudes toward artificial
intelligence. Sage Open, 12(2):21582440221100463.
Tan, L. and Luhrs, M. (2024). Using Generative AI Mid-
journey to Enhance Divergent and Convergent Think-
ing in an Architect’s Creative Design Process. The
Design Journal, pages 1–23.
Thoring, K., Huettemann, S., and Mueller, R. M. (2023).
The augmented designer: a research agenda for gen-
erative AI-enabled design. Proceedings of the Design
Society, 3:3345–3354.
Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., and Iansiti, M. (2020). In-
novation and design in the age of artificial intelli-
gence. Journal of product innovation management,
37(3):212–227.
Vinchon, F., Lubart, T., Bartolotta, S., Gironnay, V., Botella,
M., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Burkhardt, J.-M., Bon-
nardel, N., Corazza, G. E., Gl
˘
aveanu, V., et al. (2023).
Artificial intelligence & creativity: A manifesto for
collaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
57(4):472–484.
Wang, N. and Lester, J. (2023). AI education for K-12: a
survey. In International Conference on Artificial In-
telligence in Education, pages 44–49. Springer.
Wingstr
¨
om, R., Hautala, J., and Lundman, R. (2024). Re-
defining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of
computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity
Research Journal, 36(2):177–193.
Y
¨
uzbas¸ıo
˘
glu, E. (2021). Attitudes and perceptions of den-
tal students towards artificial intelligence. Journal of
dental education, 85(1):60–68.
Zhou, E. and Lee, D. (2024). Generative artificial in-
telligence, human creativity, and art. PNAS nexus,
3(3):pgae052.
AI Literacy and Attitudes Towards AI in Design Education: A Comparative Study of Communication and Architectural Design Students
471