<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=188387"><dc:title>Dialogic artificial intelligence in the architectural design studio</dc:title><dc:creator>Stanimirović,	Mirko	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Wang,	Jiaqi	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Zupančič,	Domen	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Momčilović-Petronijević,	Ana	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ćirić,	Ivan	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>artificial intelligence</dc:subject><dc:subject>architectural education</dc:subject><dc:subject>AI sparring</dc:subject><dc:subject>critical thinking</dc:subject><dc:subject>reflective practice</dc:subject><dc:subject>generative AI</dc:subject><dc:subject>design studio</dc:subject><dc:subject>authorship</dc:subject><dc:subject>AI colab</dc:subject><dc:description>Integrating generative artificial intelligence into architectural education raises a question not only of whether AI helps, but of how its use should be structured. This paper empirically examines the AI Sparring model—a dialogic, critical approach to student–AI interaction—through a workshop in which architecture students designed a pavilion in a fortress. The three self-selected groups differed in the role AI played in the formation of the concept, not in its final presentation: Group A developed concepts traditionally, through sketches and physical working models, with AI serving only as a rendering tool at the end; Group B used AI directly as a generative tool; and Group C worked through structured critical dialogue with AI. The works were independently rated by three evaluators from three countries, alongside keyword analysis and assessment of reflective depth and theoretical references. Group C produced the most consistent concept quality, with no weak works, yet the single highest-rated work came from the traditional group—Sparring raises the “floor” rather than the “ceiling” of quality. At the same time, Group C reported the lowest sense of authorship, and qualitative analysis revealed “simulated depth”: theoretical references cited without genuine engagement. Because of the small, self-selected samples, the findings are read as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The paper sheds light on the limits of reflective AI pedagogy and proposes concrete revisions to the model.</dc:description><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-09-22 12:04:03</dc:date><dc:type>Članek v reviji</dc:type><dc:identifier>188387</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
