SuperSkillsStack: Agency, Domain Knowledge, Imagination, and Taste in Human-AI Design Education

This paper introduces the "Trilingual Triad" framework, a model that explains how students learn to design with generative artificial intelligence (AI) through the integration of Design, AI, and Domain Knowledge. As generative AI rapidly enters higher education, students often engage with these systems as passive users of generated outputs rather than active creators of AI-enabled knowledge tools. This study investigates how students can transition from using AI as a tool to designing AI as a collaborative teammate. The research examines a graduate course, Creating the Frontier of No-code Smart Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), in which students developed domain-specific custom GPT systems without coding. Using a qualitative multi-case study approach, three projects - the Interview Companion GPT, the Urban Observer GPT, and Buddy Buddy - were analyzed across three dimensions: design, AI architecture, and domain expertise. The findings show that effective human-AI collaboration emerges when these three "languages" are orchestrated together: domain knowledge structures the AI's logic, design mediates human-AI interaction, and AI extends learners' cognitive capacity. The Trilingual Triad framework highlights how building AI systems can serve as a constructionist learning process that strengthens AI literacy, metacognition, and learner agency.

Architectural design education relies heavily on visual ideation and representation to support collaborative learning in studio environments. Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and extended reality (XR) offer new opportunities for rapid idea exploration and immersive spatial visualization. This exploratory mixed-methods classroom study investigated how GenAI-assisted multi-user XR influenced collaborative architectural conceptual design. We developed GenARch, a pipeline that integrates GenAI-based visual generation with collaborative XR environments, and deployed it in an undergraduate architectural design studio. Twenty-seven students formed seven self-selected design teams; four teams incorporated GenARch into their usual course workflow to support collaborative ideation and visualization, while three teams continued the same course workflow without GenARch. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed design self-efficacy, attitudes toward collaborative learning, and teamwork; a seven-member panel evaluated team design presentations; and GenARch teams participated in group interviews. The quantitative results showed larger relative declines in confidence and outcome expectancy for the GenARch condition and a positive difference-in-differences estimate for perceived conflict management, while panel-rated presentation outcomes were not significantly different between conditions. Interviews indicated complementary roles for the technologies: GenAI supported idea externalization and visual reference generation, whereas XR supported spatial, contextual, and scale-based evaluation. Students also reported challenges related to control, dimensional fidelity, shared attention, and motion comfort. These findings highlight both opportunities and limitations when GenAI and XR are incorporated into collaborative design education.

Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly adopted in design education, yet evaluating its educational value through final outcomes provides an incomplete picture. This study compares two ecologically plausible workflows in an architectural conceptual design task: GenAI-assisted image generation and ArchDaily-based precedent search. The comparison concerns complete workflows rather than the isolated contributions. Thirty-six students completed a two-phase design task, first designing independently and then revising with their assigned workflow. Eight judges rated design performance, while participants reported task-specific and general creative self-efficacy and cognitive load after each phase. Difference-in-differences analyses showed no significant overall differences between the GenAI and precedent-search workflows in design performance, cognitive workload, or task-specific creative self-efficacy. Beyond these null overall effects, three patterns were observed. General creative self-efficacy showed a significant relative decline under the GenAI workflow. A subgroup analysis suggested higher revision-phase performance among novice students using GenAI than among those using precedent search (F (1,32) = 4.303, p = 0.046). However, this exploratory interaction should be interpreted cautiously due to low rating reliability, small subgroup cells, and imprecise estimation. Third, exploratory prompt analyses suggested that iterative, task-specific prompting strategies (CD3, CD6) were associated with cognitive load reductions at the uncorrected level, but neither association survived multiple-comparison correction. Overall, the GenAI workflow did not produce uniform gains. Its educational value may depend on pedagogical framing, learner characteristics, and human-AI interaction structure, underscoring the need to preserve creative agency and develop prompt literacy.