CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Architecture and Computational DesignDesign Education and PracticeArchitecture, Art, Education

AI in Architectural Education: Rethinking Studio Culture

Open access
Karadağ, Derya·2025·PLANARCH - Design and Planning Research
DOI 10.54864/planarch.1749891
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article examines the pedagogical transformations emerging in architectural education through a conceptual and critical perspective focused on human–AI co-creativity. Co-creativity specifically refers to collaborations between human designers and artificial intelligence, in contrast to broader notions of collaborative creativity. The paper argues that AI functions not merely as a technical instrument, but as a co-creative partner that reshapes studio culture, authorship, and creative work. Drawing on selected studio-based cases, the study explores how AI-supported workflows influence ideation, representation, critique culture, prompt literacy, and ethical reasoning. Thematically, it engages with concepts such as cognitive augmentation and conceptual ambiguity to demonstrate how design pedagogy is evolving in response to intelligent systems. Rather than viewing AI as a generative tool alone, the article positions it as an epistemic and ethical agent that prompts a rethinking of studio environments as cultural and pedagogical spaces. Methodologically, the study adopts a case-based approach, analysing selected 16 design studios in which AI was integrated into early-stage ideation, feedback sessions, and conceptual development. These cases extent strategies from prompt-driven speculation to hybrid critique practices, revealing a dynamic landscape of experimentation and adaptation. The findings suggest that AI can foster deeper conceptual inquiry, student reflection, and new modalities of authorship and collaboration. Eventually, the study underscores the need for reflexive pedagogical frameworks that integrate AI meaningfully enhancing, rather than displacing, human creativity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.54864/planarch.1749891

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Karadağ, D.
Affiliations
Işık University (TR)
Corresponding author
Karadağ, Derya
ORCID
Karadağ, Derya
Venue
PLANARCH - Design and Planning Research
Publisher
Ataturk Universitesi
Published
2025-09-20
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
243-253
ISSN
2822-4507 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.54864/planarch.1749891
OpenAlex
W4414231930
Cited by
10
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 10
FWCI
52.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • PLANARCH - Design and Planning Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Architecture and Computational Design
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Architecture, Art, Education
Keywords
architectural design studio, human-AI co-creation, design pedagogy, authorship, prompt literacy, idea generation, cognitive enhancement, conceptual ambiguity, moral reasoning, collaborative creativity, reflexive pedagogy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review