STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF ETHICS AND USEFULNESS OF AI TOOLS FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF ETHICS AND USEFULNESS OF AI TOOLS FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING

A. Dagman, K. De Licht (2024).  STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF ETHICS AND USEFULNESS OF AI TOOLS FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING.

AI tools have become increasingly popular and accessible in various domains, including industrial design engineering. However, there is a lack of empirical studies on how these tools affect the design process and outcomes, as well as the ethical implications of their use. In this paper, we present a research study that aims to explore how students at bachelor level in Industrial Design Engineering, particularly those without prior knowledge, perceive the usefulness of text-to-image generative tools. We also examine their main ethical considerations regarding the use of these types of tools, as well as AI tools in general. Our findings indicate a cautious but curious attitude towards AI technologies, underscoring the need for a nuanced approach in their integration into educational curricula. The apprehension towards adopting these tools reflects a broader concern about ethical implications, technological dependence, and the potential overshadowing of human creativity. However, the study also reveals an eagerness to understand and utilize these technologies, suggesting a latent potential for enhancing creative processes in design engineering. As our study shows, students are keenly aware of the challenges and opportunities presented by AI, highlighting the importance of clear guidelines and ethical frameworks. In conclusion, the integration of AI tools like text-to-image generative models in design engineering education presents both challenges and opportunities. The key to successfully navigating this integration lies in a balanced approach that emphasizes ethical usage, critical understanding, and creative collaboration. Through such an approach, we can prepare the next generation of designers to effectively and responsibly harness the potential of AI in their work, ensuring that human creativity remains at the forefront of design innovation.

Authors (New): 
Andreas Dagman
Karl Fine De Licht
Affiliations: 
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords: 
Text-to-image generative methods
Industrial design engineering
AI-tools in education
Ethic in AI
CDIO Standard 6
CDIO Standard 8
Year: 
2024
Reference: 
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43.: 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
de Fine Licht, K. (2023) Integrating Large Language Models into Higher Education: Guidelines for Effective Implementation. Comput. Sci. Math. Forum 2023, 8, 65. : 
https://doi.org/10.3390/cmsf2023008065
Kvale, S., (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(99)80208-2
Malamqvist, J., Edstöm, K. & Rosén A., (2020), CDIO STANDARDS 3.0 - UPDATES TO THE CORE CDIO STANDARDS, Proceedings of the 16th International CDIO Conference, hosted on-line by Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.: 
Neumann, M., Rauschenberger, M., & Schön, E. M. (2023). “We Need To Talk About ChatGPT”: The Future of AI and Higher Education.: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.25968/opus-2467
Kumar, R. V. & Raman, R. (2022), Student Perceptions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education, 2022 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), p. 450-454: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.35603/sws.iscss.2023/s08.38
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1).: 
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning, Journal of Applied Learning &Teaching, 6(1), 31–40.: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
Go to top
randomness