Date
Publisher
arXiv
The growing integration of AI tools in student design projects presents an
unresolved challenge in HCI education: how should AI-generated content be cited
and documented? Traditional citation frameworks -- grounded in credibility,
retrievability, and authorship -- struggle to accommodate the dynamic and
ephemeral nature of AI outputs. In this paper, we examine how undergraduate
students in a UX design course approached AI usage and citation when given the
freedom to integrate generative tools into their design process. Through
qualitative analysis of 35 team projects and reflections from 175 students, we
identify varied citation practices ranging from formal attribution to indirect
or absent acknowledgment. These inconsistencies reveal gaps in existing
frameworks and raise questions about authorship, assessment, and pedagogical
transparency. We argue for rethinking AI citation as a reflective and
pedagogical practice; one that supports metacognitive engagement by prompting
students to critically evaluate how and why they used AI throughout the design
process. We propose alternative strategies -- such as AI contribution
statements and process-aware citation models that better align with the
iterative and reflective nature of design education. This work invites
educators to reconsider how citation practices can support meaningful
student--AI collaboration.
Study at a glance
- Question: How do undergraduate students use and cite generative AI tools in their design projects?
- Setting and data: An undergraduate UX design course; 35 team projects and reflections from 175 students.
- Method: Qualitative analysis of team projects and student reflections.
Why it matters
The growing integration of AI tools in student design projects presents an unresolved challenge: how should AI-generated content be cited and documented? Traditional citation frameworks struggle to accommodate the dynamic and ephemeral nature of AI outputs.
Key findings
- In an undergraduate design course with 175 students, AI citation practices varied widely, ranging from formal attribution to indirect or absent acknowledgment.
- Inconsistent AI crediting revealed gaps in existing frameworks and raised questions about student authorship, assessment, and instructional transparency.
- Traditional citation frameworks struggle to accommodate the dynamic and temporary nature of generative AI outputs.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design

