Constructing a Case Teaching Model for Packaging Design Courses in the Era of Generative AI

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is transforming design education by reshaping how design knowledge is generated, explored, and applied. While previous studies have primarily examined AI-assisted creativity and curriculum innovation, comparatively limited attention has been devoted to reconstructing case teaching for AI-supported learning. Addressing this gap, this study proposes the Generation–Analysis–Iteration–Reflection (GAIR) pedagogical model for packaging design education. Drawing upon literature on generative AI, case-based learning, and design pedagogy, the study first analyses the challenges that AI presents for traditional case teaching before developing a process-oriented pedagogical framework centred on human–AI collaboration. The GAIR model reconceptualises design cases as evolving pedagogical resources that accompany the entire learning process rather than static instructional examples. Through the four interconnected stages of Generation, Analysis, Iteration, and Reflection, students progressively develop creative exploration, design reasoning, design optimisation, and design judgement. The study contributes to the literature by extending case-based learning to AI-assisted design education and provides a practical framework for curriculum design, teacher facilitation, and formative assessment in packaging design courses. The proposed model also offers a theoretical foundation for future empirical research on AI-assisted case teaching in studio-based design education.

Education

1. Auras, R., Bix, L., Xu, D., Weir, C., Daum, M., Almenar, E., Brann, A., Iwaszkiewicz, R., Kamdem, D. P., Mahmoudi, M., Marshall, J., Mohiuddin, M., Rabnawaz, M., Joodaky, A., & Lee, E. (2023). Mapping class learning outcomes of the core curriculum to university learning goals at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 36(4), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2712 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A. K., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Meron, Y., & Tekmen Araci, Y. (2023). Artificial intelligence in design education: Evaluating ChatGPT as a virtual colleague for post-graduate course development. Design Science, 9, e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200402 [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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Kogan Page. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sharples, M. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 [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