Reframing Graphic Design Education in Higher Education for the Age of AI: Global Issues, Evidence and Institutional Strategies

The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is profoundly reshaping higher education across the globe particularly within creative disciplines like graphic design. AI-driven tools are now integral to ideation, visualization, and production processes, allowing for faster workflows, enhanced experimentation, and new modes of visual communication. Yet, this technological evolution also introduces complex pedagogical and institutional challenges. Many universities are grappling with curriculum obsolescence, as current programs often fail to cultivate the AI literacy and critical design-thinking skills demanded by the modern creative economy. Simultaneously, issues surrounding assessment integrity and academic honesty have become more pressing, given AI’s ability to generate outputs nearly indistinguishable from student work. Legal and ethical questions regarding authorship, copyright, and data transparency further complicate the educational landscape. Moreover, unequal access to AI technologies risks deepening existing global educational disparities. This Structured Literature-Type (SLT) study synthesizes international research from 2020 to 2025 to explore these challenges and propose evidence-based strategies. It introduces a comprehensive Curriculum Assessment Capability Governance (CACG) framework to guide higher education institutions in implementing responsible, inclusive, and future-ready AI integration within design education.

Generative Ai, Graphic Design Education

1. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ithaka S+R. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: The product landscape. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Design Council. (2024). Annual report 2023/24. London: Design Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ithaka S+R. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: The product landscape. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Leaton Gray, S. (2025). AI-based digital cheating at university and the case for authentic assessment. Ethics and Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. Washington, DC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. Brussels. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. AIGA Design Educators Community. (2024). AI resources and community reflections. AIGA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Design Council. (2024). Annual report 2023/24. London: Design Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. Brussels: European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ithaka S+R. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: The product landscape. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Leaton Gray, S. (2025). AI-based digital cheating at university and the case for authentic assessment. Ethics and Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Oh, D. (2024). Generative AI in higher education design studio. Proceedings of the Design Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Leaton Gray, S. (2025). AI-based digital cheating at university and the case for authentic assessment. Ethics and Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. TEQSA. (2025). AI cheating in university assignments is all but impossible to detect. Australian Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. Brussels: European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. X. Tang et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Ithaka S+R. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: The product landscape. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. UNESCO. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the future of learning: Policy responses to bridge the digital divide. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Leaton Gray, S. (2025). AI-based digital cheating at university and the case for authentic assessment. Ethics and Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Oh, D. (2024). Generative AI in higher education design studio. Proceedings of the Design Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Davis+Gilbert LLP. (2024). The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: Key takeaways and analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. Brussels: European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. European Commission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Ithaka S+R. (2024). Generative AI in higher education: The product landscape. Ithaka S+R. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Leaton Gray, S. (2025). AI-based digital cheating at university and the case for authentic assessment. Ethics and Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Oh, D. (2024). Generative AI in higher education design studio. Proceedings of the Design Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. TEQSA. (2025). AI cheating in university assignments is all but impossible to detect. Australian Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. European Commission. (2024). EU AI Act: Regulation on artificial intelligence. European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Fleischmann, K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in graphic design education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Tang, X., et al. (2024). Balancing human creativity and AI tools in industrial design education. ACM Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Parts 2 and 3. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO. [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