Generative AI Assisted Workflows in Architectural Conceptual Design: Performance, Creative Self-Efficacy, and Cognitive Load

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support self-directed learning, yet student interaction with such systems often remains unstructured, limiting engagement in deeper cognitive processes. This study examines how instructional guidance shapes student and AI interaction in construction education. A five-step prompting framework grounded in Generative Learning Theory (GLT) is introduced to guide learner interaction during review activities. A controlled experiment compares three learning conditions: slide-based learning, unprompted AI-supported learning, and prompted AI-supported learning. Learning performance is assessed using multiple-choice and open-ended tasks, and user experience is measured using the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Performance differences are concentrated on tasks requiring explanation and reasoning. The prompted condition achieves higher open-ended scores, with an improvement of approximately 2 or 3 points on a scale of 18 (p < 0.01), while no significant differences are observed in multiple-choice performance. The unprompted condition remains comparable to slide-based learning. These findings indicate that the effectiveness of AI-supported learning depends on how interaction is structured. The proposed framework provides a basis for integrating learning science principles into generative AI systems for construction education.

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools has created new literacy demands for designers who must verbalize tacit knowledge through natural language prompts. Yet the micro-level cognitive processes by which designers externalize implicit intentions during iterative AI dialogue remain underexplored. This exploratory qualitative study examined five expert designers (11-20 years UI/UX experience, M = 15.4 years) using think-aloud protocols. We identified "Strategic Oscillation" -- experts' intentional return to vague language (Vibe) after progressing toward operational specifications (Code), leveraging AI's probabilistic nature for creative exploration. We observed shifts from "instruction" to "consultation" mode, deep reflection triggered by semantic collisions, and one participant's disengagement revealing conceptual alignment as a tentative boundary condition. We propose the ECRT cycle (Expectation-Collision-Reflection-Transformation) operationalizing the SECI model's "externalization" phase for human-AI collaboration. These findings yield three design patterns for metacognitive support and position AI as a "probabilistic mirror" catalyzing tacit knowledge externalization.