Potential Risks of Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Relevant Avoidance Strategies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/yshzj398Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence; Design Major; Educational Teaching Application; Potential Risks; Risk Prevention; Original Design Education.Abstract
Against the backdrop of digital and intelligent transformation, generative AI tools including drawing software, 3D modeling systems and rendering engines have been widely adopted in university design teaching. AI streamlines design workflows, improves teaching efficiency, diversifies creative expression, and breaks the constraints of traditional design education in terms of time, space and physical materials. Nevertheless, excessive reliance and improper application of AI among teachers and students have given rise to prominent educational risks. Based on authentic teaching scenarios and practical cases, this paper analyzes various latent risks brought by AI adoption, and explores internal and external contributing factors from four dimensions: teaching administration, student psychology, disciplinary characteristics and industrial norms. Centering on curriculum iteration, teaching reform, academic norms, assessment mechanisms and value cultivation, it proposes feasible strategies for risk prevention and control. This paper clarifies the rational application boundary of AI in design teaching, advocating that technology serves as an assistant rather than a substitute for manual creation and independent thinking. It upholds the core values of design education featuring practice, emotional expression, cultural inheritance and personalized creation, and promotes sound long-term integration between AI and modern design education.
Downloads
References
[1] Norman, D. (2010). Why design education must change. core77, 26, 92–95.
[2] Friedman, K. (2012). Models of design: Envisioning a future design education. Visible language, 46(1/2), 132.
[3] Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.
[4] Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. Herdsa review of higher education, 2(2), 27–50.
[5] Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49.
[6] B. Bush, S., Edelen, D., Roberts, T., Maiorca, C., Ivy, J. T., Cook, K. L.... & Cox Jr, R. (2024). Humanistic STE (A) M instruction through empathy: leveraging design thinking to improve society. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(1), 60–79.
[7] Carvalho, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y. S., Markauskaite, L., & De Laat, M. (2022). How can we design for learning in an AI world. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100053.
[8] J. Auernhammer. (2020). Human-centered AI: The role of human-centered design research in the development of AI. In S. Boess, M. Cheung, S. Cain (Eds.), Synergy — DRS International Conference 2020, 11–14 August, held online. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.282
[9] Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and information technologies, 27(5), 6069–6104.
[10] Eden, C. A., Chisom, O. N., & Adeniyi, I. S. (2024). Integrating AI into education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), 006–013.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
