Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Student Perceptions Of Large Language Models Use In Self-Reflection And Design Critique In Architecture Studio

Date
Publisher
arXiv
This study investigates the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into the feedback mechanisms of the architectural design studio, shifting the focus from generative production to reflective pedagogy. Employing a mixed-methods approach with surveys and semi structured interviews with 22 architecture students at the Singapore University of Technology and De-sign, the research analyzes student perceptions across three distinct feed-back domains: self-reflection, peer critique, and professor-led reviews. The findings reveal that students engage with LLMs not as authoritative in-structors, but as collaborative "cognitive mirrors" that scaffold critical thinking. In self-directed learning, LLMs help structure thoughts and over-come the "blank page" problem, though they are limited by a lack of contex-tual nuance. In peer critiques, the technology serves as a neutral mediator, mitigating social anxiety and the "fear of offending". Furthermore, in high-stakes professor-led juries, students utilize LLMs primarily as post-critique synthesis engines to manage cognitive overload and translate ab-stract academic discourse into actionable design iterations.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How do architecture students perceive and use large language models across self-reflection, peer critique, and professor-led reviews?
  • Setting and data: Singapore University of Technology and Design, 22 architecture students across undergraduate and master's levels.
  • Method: Mixed methods sequential explanatory design combining three online surveys with semi-structured interviews.
Why it matters

Design studio critiques often induce anxiety and cognitive overload, but little empirical evidence exists on how students perceive large language models as mediators of critique and reflection rather than tools of production.

Key findings
  • Most surveyed students viewed large language models as discussion partners (58%) that aided thought organization (97%), though 36% noted misunderstandings of design intent and 32% reported overly generic responses.
  • For professor-led critiques, 95% of students identified the ideal role of large language models as post-critique reflection partners to synthesize complex feedback and translate abstract critiques into concrete actions.
  • Only 10% of students regularly used large language models to prepare peer critiques, but 80% believed AI could foster greater focus on design rather than student personality.

Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

Who is the user?
Who age?