A Five-Dimensional Framework for AI-Assisted Cultural Design Learning in Visual Design Education: Evidence from Chinese Tiger Symbolism

Artificial intelligence has been increasingly used in art and design education, but its use in culturally oriented visual design learning still lacks a clear pedagogical framework. Many existing studies focus on AI image generation and technical efficiency, while less attention has been given to how AI can support students’ cultural understanding, creative thinking, and reflective design practice. This study proposes a five-dimensional framework for AI-assisted cultural design learning in visual design education, using Chinese tiger symbolism as a case. The framework includes five connected dimensions: cultural and symbolic, visual and formal, creative and technical, emotional and psychological, and educational and experiential. Based on a qualitative case study, the research draws on student design artefacts, reflection materials, semi-structured interviews with students and teachers, expert feedback, and classroom observations. The preliminary findings show that the framework helped students move from a general use of tiger images to a deeper understanding of cultural meaning. It also supported the translation of symbolic meaning into visual forms, guided AI prompt design and image generation, and encouraged students to revise their designs through reflection and feedback. The study argues that AI-assisted cultural design learning becomes meaningful when cultural interpretation, visual translation, AI exploration, emotional expression, and pedagogical reflection work together. This research contributes a structured framework for integrating AI tools with cultural symbol learning in visual design education. It also provides practical guidance for teachers who aim to combine digital technology, cultural heritage, and creative learning in design courses.

AI-assisted design education; cultural design learning; five-dimensional framework; Chinese tiger symbolism; visual design education; creative learning

1. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chiou, L. Y., Hung, P. K., Liang, R. H., & Wang, C. T. (2023). Designing with AI: An exploration of co-ideation with image generators. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 1941–1954). ACM. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Eberhard, W. (1986). A dictionary of Chinese symbols: Hidden symbols in Chinese life and thought. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Welch, P. B. (2008). Chinese art: A guide to motifs and visual imagery. Tuttle Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study