Research Paper

An experiential learning approach to basic

design studio
Hung-Hsiang Wang, Department of Industrial Design, National Taipei
University of Technology, 1, Sec. 3, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei 10608, Taiwan

This study explores an experiential learning approach in basic design education

by integrating observations of the real world to improve students’ learning
motivation, self-efficacy, and performance. A quasi-experiment with 28 first-
year industrial design students used a single-group pre- and post-test design over
a nine-week studio. The short course included four learning units on natural
observation for pattern analysis and shape reconstruction. Learning outcomes
were assessed through scales, rubrics, T tests and regression analysis, while
qualitative feedback was analyzed through text clouds. The results indicated an
improvement in self-efficacy but mixed motivation for learning, probably due to
the challenges in the reconstruction of shapes using generative rules and CAD
tools. Students showed strong interest in field observation and generative rule
exploration. The approach has positively influenced self-efficacy and learning
performance. Future improvements include the alignment of tasks with the
previous knowledge of students, the integration of user-friendly generative AI
tools and the introduction of systematic problem-solving methods.
© 2025 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: basic design, industrial design, experiential learning, learning moti-

vation, self-efficacy

1 Introduction
Today’s industrial design students face increasing challenges in adapting to
AIoT-driven product-service systems and computational design tools. AIoT
(Artificial Intelligence of Things) refers to the integration of artificial intelli-
gence with the Internet of Things to develop intelligent, connected products
and services―such as wearable devices and smart home appliances―which
Corresponding author: are rapidly transforming industry standards (Naeem et al., 2024). Computa-
Hung-Hsiang Wang tional design tools, including algorithmic modeling and AI-assisted generative
wanghh@[Link] design platforms, enable designers to address increasing complexity and
[Link]/locate/destud
0142-694X Design Studies 99 (2025) 101328
[Link]
© 2025 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1
customization in product development. As these technologies become central
to industrial practice, designers are now expected to possess not only creative
and visual skills, but also computational literacy, data interpretation ability,
and interdisciplinary collaboration experience.

However, foundational design education has not kept pace with these techno-
logical shifts, often emphasizing traditional studio practices without address-
ing students’ preparedness for digital and systemic design contexts (Meyer &
Norman, 2020). This highlights the need to rethink the pedagogical ap-
proaches used in basic design education, particularly in relation to motivation
and self-efficacy. Basic design courses serve as the cornerstone for developing
visual literacy, creative problem-solving, and foundational design thinking.
Historically, these courses have drawn from two dominant traditions: the Bau-
haus model, which emphasizes formal principles such as composition and the
relationship between parts and wholes (Boucharenc, 2006; Ranjan, 2007), and
experiential design approaches, which integrate observation-based learning
with emerging computational technologies (Uysal & Topalo� glu, 2017).

The integration of experiential learning into basic design education was pio-
neered by the Ulm School of Design and the Leeds College of Art in the
mid-20th century. These institutions introduced curricula that combined
empirical observation, mathematical analysis, and scientific inquiry with
design principles derived from Bauhaus ideologies (Bettaieb, 2017; de
Sausmarez, 2001). Leeds emphasized biological deformation and projection
exercises to train perceptual awareness (Hamilton, 1961; Yeomans, 1988),
while Ulm encouraged geometric reasoning and systems thinking (Leopold,
2013; M€antele, 2021; Oswald, 2022; Spitz, 2002; Takayasu, 2017).

Despite these early innovations, experiential methods are still rarely used in
basic design studios, which often prioritize theoretical constructs and aesthetic
doctrines over real-world engagement. Students from vocational back-
grounds, in particular the art and design groups, may find it difficult to connect
these abstract exercises to meaningful design tasks, especially when they lack
experience in digital modeling or algorithmic thinking. They often have
weaker mathematical, computational, and general academic literacy
compared to their academic-track peers (Chang & Lu, 2025; G€ ok &
Erdo�gan, 2017; Lin et al., 2019). This skills gap makes it more difficult for
them to connect abstract exercises to meaningful design tasks and to apply
concepts in practice, contributing to increased anxiety and lower self-efficacy
in design learning environments (Chien et al., 2022). Insufficient experience
with algorithmic or digital modeling has also been empirically linked to
decreased motivation and digital self-efficacy in similar student populations
(Liao et al., 2022; T€ urker & Pala, 2020). These findings underscore the

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

2
 importance of aligning design education with students’ backgrounds and sup-
porting computational skill development.

This study addresses the above issues by implementing an experiential learning

model in a basic design studio for first-year industrial design students. The
course design is rooted in Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (2014), empha-
sizing field observation, inductive reasoning, and computational modeling
through the use of parametric tools. By observing patterns in nature, abstract-
ing generative principles, and expressing them through digital simulation, stu-
dents engage in an iterative learning process grounded in both direct
experience and reflective analysis.

This research aims to evaluate whether this approach enhances students’

learning motivation, self-efficacy, and overall design performance. In doing
so, it contributes to ongoing discussions on reforming foundational design ed-
ucation by combining experiential pedagogy with the demands of computa-
tional and system-oriented design. It also addresses calls from scholars such
as Uysal and Topalo�glu (2017) to bridge the gap between traditional experien-
tial learning methods and the adoption of computational logic in early design
education.

2 Literature review
2.1 Experiential learning in basic design
The pedagogical legacy of institutions like the Ulm School of Design and
Leeds College of Art continues to shape how experiential learning is applied
in basic design education. These schools modeled a hands-on, perceptually
grounded approach that blended real-world observation with systematic
exploration ― a method still echoed in today’s studio practices (see
Bettaieb, 2017; de Sausmarez, 2001). These educational innovations laid the
groundwork for combining observation, induction, and abstraction in design
learning, and emphasized engaging the senses, training perception, and recon-
structing form through guided experimentation.

However, despite these precedents, experiential learning remains underutilized

in many basic design courses, which continue to favor deductive reasoning
from aesthetic principles and precedent-based design (Boucharenc, 2006).
This limits students’ opportunities to engage directly with natural phenomena
or to develop design insights through hands-on experimentation and iterative
discovery. Moreover, while the theoretical value of experiential learning is well
recognized, empirical research on its implementation and effectiveness in foun-
dational design curricula remains sparse. Few studies provide systematic evi-
dence of how experiential strategies influence students’ conceptual
understanding or creative confidence in early-stage design education.

Experiential learning in basic design

3
 Contemporary scholars argue that experiential learning supports the develop-
ment of analytical thinking, particularly when integrated with computational
or generative tools (Uysal & Topalo� glu, 2017), yet more empirical studies are
needed to validate and scale such pedagogical models.

Table 1 outlines the philosophical and procedural differences between tradi-

tional and experiential design education, based on the framework presented
by Caner Y€ uksel and Dinç Uyaro� glu (2021). Traditional approaches are
grounded in rational deduction and abstract formalism, where students derive
artifacts from established design principles. In contrast, experiential learning
emphasizes abduction―inferring generative principles from real-world obser-
vations―and encourages learners to develop design knowledge through
engagement with physical context, reflection, and simulation.

Kolb’s (2014) experiential learning cycle (Figure 1), as adapted here, contrasts
with traditional methods. Traditional teaching starts with abstract concepts
and analysis of artworks, while experiential learning begins with concrete
observation. This approach uses personal experiences to build and analyze
concepts, emphasizing direct experience over abstract instruction for devel-
oping reliable design principles. For example, Caner Y€ uksel and Dinç
Uyaro�glu (2021) describe a basic design studio model in which students first
actively engage with physical materials and spatial configurations―learning
through doing―before any formal theoretical content is introduced. In this
way, knowledge is constructed from experience and reflection on action, rather
than beginning with theory and moving toward practice. This stands in clear
contrast to conventional curricula that prioritize learning abstract principles
before allowing students to apply them in hands-on tasks.

Table 1 Experiential learning and traditional learning in basic design (based on Caner Y€
uksel & Dinç Uyaro�
glu, 2021)

Traditional learning Experience Learning

Mindset Feeling, emotional Thinking, cognitive

Objects of knowing Master works, design precedents The physical world observable through
sensory experience.
Basic principles Rationale serves as the foundation and Patterns reflect the laws and order
reason for the existence of everything in present in the external world.
the universe, representing the real
world.
Aesthetic principle Aesthetic principles precede aesthetic The quality and meaning of beauty are
objects and context. influenced by its context.
Design process Deduction from a priori principles as Abduction from observation to
axioms and given facts to produce plausible explanation to produce
artifact statements. artifact statements.
Learning perspectives Learn principles through deduction and Learn principles through abduction and
rationality, focusing on theoretical awareness of nature, emphasizing
aspects and design essence, starting hands-on experience, observation,
from the whole and moving to details. abstraction, and verification.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

4
Figure 1 Traditional learning (left) and experiential learning for basic design (right) (adapted from Kolb, 2014)

Recent research highlights a growing body of literature examining the applica-

tion and impact of experiential learning approaches in design education
(Caner Y€ uksel & Dinç Uyaro�glu, 2021; Hettithanthri & Hansen, 2022). How-
ever, further empirical investigation is needed to clarify how experiential
learning influences student motivation, self-efficacy, and design performance
in foundational design courses―a gap this study seeks to address.

2.2 Learning motivation and self-efficacy

Motivating students to learn design in meaningful, lasting ways requires a
pedagogical structure that fosters both interest and confidence. According to
Garcia and Pintrich (1994), motivation is shaped by self-beliefs and percep-
tions of the learning environment. In design education, where open-ended
problems and subjective assessments are common, motivation depends heavily
on students’ perceived relevance of tasks and their belief in their capacity to
succeed (Brophy, 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Tuan et al., 2005).

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by

Pintrich and De Groot (1990) remains a widely used instrument for assessing
students’ motivational profiles, with consistently high internal reliability
(Garcia & Pintrich, 2013). It distinguishes between motivation and strategy
dimensions, allowing instructors to identify how learning approaches evolve
over time.

Self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s capability to perform specific tasks (Bandura,

2010), has also been identified as a key factor in student performance and persis-
tence. For design students, domain-specific scales like the Industrial Design Self-
Efficacy and Anxiety Scale (IDSEAS) provide targeted insight into how stu-
dents perceive their ability to complete modeling, problem-solving, and imple-
mentation tasks (Chien et al., 2022; Fantz et al., 2011).

Experiential learning in basic design

5
Recent studies show that high self-efficacy contributes to improved learning out-
comes and academic performance (Hayat et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022). However,
self-efficacy is also influenced by students’ exposure to scaffolded learning expe-
riences that allow for early success and the gradual development of complex
skills (Yusof et al., 2021). Experiential learning frameworks can thus be power-
ful tools for improving both self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, particularly
when computational or unfamiliar tools are introduced incrementally and sup-
ported through coaching and feedback mechanisms. Experiential learning is
particularly effective in this regard because it actively engages students in
hands-on tasks, provides opportunities for reflection and immediate feedback,
and emphasizes mastery through repeated practice in authentic contexts. These
features foster both a sense of competence and intrinsic motivation, especially
when new or computational tools are introduced incrementally and supported
through coaching (Caner Y€ uksel & Dinç Uyaro� glu, 2021; Hettithanthri &
Hansen, 2022). Thus, experiential learning frameworks can be powerful tools
for improving self-efficacy and motivation in design education.

Together, the reviewed literature underscores the importance of experiential

learning in fostering analytical design skills and student confidence. Yet
gaps remain in its systematic integration into early design education, particu-
larly with regard to supporting students from non-technical backgrounds. This
study seeks to address these gaps by implementing and evaluating an experien-
tial design model that combines nature-based observation with computational
abstraction and performance-based assessment.

3 Teaching program
3.1 Course planning
The teaching program was implemented within a Basic Design course offered
to first-year industrial design students at a public university. We drew upon the
BOPPPS model (Bridge-in, Objective, Pre-assessment, Participatory learning,
Post-assessment, and Summary) (Wu et al., 2022) with Kolb’s experiential
learning cycle (2014) to create a structured yet flexible learning environment.
The BOPPPS model was chosen for its systematic approach to lesson plan-
ning, which ensures that each class begins with engagement, clearly communi-
cates objectives, assesses prior knowledge, involves active participation, and
concludes with reflection and assessment. This framework aligns well with
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, as each BOPPPS component supports a
key phase of experiential learning: “Bridge-in” provides opportunities for con-
crete experience and active engagement; “Objective” specifies the intended out-
comes of learning by experience; “Participatory Learning” facilitates the
process of observation, abstraction, and experimentation; and “Summary”
fosters reflective observation. Additionally, “Pre-assessment” and “Post-
assessment” enable the evaluation of learning improvements. In this way,

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

6
 the BOPPPS model structures the instructional process to mirror and reinforce
Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning. The course was structured over nine
weeks and designed to foster cognitive engagement through observation,
abstraction, and simulation.

Four thematic learning units guided students through experiential tasks rooted
in natural observation: (1) field observation, (2) rhythm, (3) self-similarity, and
(4) gradient form. Each unit began with a guided exploration of nature-based
forms followed by exercises to extract design patterns using sketching and cod-
ing. Structure Synth, an open-source generative design tool, was introduced to
translate observed patterns into parametric simulations. This sequence was de-
signed to ensure that students actively engaged in direct experience, moved
through reflective and abstract analysis, and practiced applying learned con-
cepts in generative modeling―thus aligning with both Kolb’s experiential cy-
cle and the framework of BOPPPS.

Pre-class materials, including videos and readings, were delivered through

Google Classroom to promote flipped learning. In-class sessions integrated
short lectures, peer collaboration, fieldwork, and technical practice. A detailed
weekly breakdown, including instructional goals, content, and deliverables,
was provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Teaching schedule

Week Learning Content

1 Bridge-in (Objective/Outcome): Outline learning goals and expected results, including Ulm and
Leeds’ design works, shape grammar, fractals, and Structure Synth examples.
Pre-assessment: Pretest of Motivational Strategies for Learning Scale (MSLQ) and Industrial
Design Self-Efficacy and Anxiety Scale (IDSEAS).
2—3 Participatory Learning: Experiential learning in four units.
Unit 1: Observe nature
Teach field observation methods. Students observe and record three natural objects, identifying
patterns in growth and form, and creating both detailed and abstract sketches.
4 Unit 2: Analyzing the rhythm in nature
Introduce rhythm and shape grammar principles. Students observe and record rhythmic natural
objects, identify and describe rhythmic patterns, and use shape grammar to explain generation rules.
Apply a Structure Synth code template to simulate rhythmic shapes.
5 Unit 3: Self-similarity in nature
Introduce self-similarity and fractal principles. Students observe and record self-similar natural
objects, identify and describe self-similarity principles, and use fractals to express these rules. Apply
a Structure Synth code template to simulate self-similar shapes.
6 Unit 4: Shape gradient in nature
Introduce shape gradient principles. Students observe and record natural objects with gradient
characteristics, identify and describe these principles, and use them as shape grammar or fractals to
represent them. Apply a Structure Synth code template to simulate gradient shapes.
7 Report preparation: Introduce report writing and presentation basics, provide word and PPT
templates. Students compile reports on abstraction, rhythm, self-similarity, and shape gradient.
8 Outcome briefing: Students present their learning outcomes.
Post-assessment: Conduct MSLQ and IDSEAS post-tests and use rubrics for final performance
evaluation.
9 Summary: Review the learning goals and outcomes.

Experiential learning in basic design

7
To introduce students to generative form-making and rule-based design, the
course incorporated Structure Synth, a lightweight open-source software
that employs a simple declarative programming language to create 3D struc-
tures. Students received a beginner-friendly code template that demonstrated
how to manipulate shape parameters―such as scale, rotation, and color―a-
cross gradients. This template served as a scaffold for exploring how small
rule changes could yield complex formal variations, effectively bridging intui-
tive visual thinking with computational logic. While the coding component
was intentionally minimal to lower technical barriers, it played a critical role
in developing algorithmic thinking and supporting the experiential design
process.

To scaffold learning effectively, the course was organized in a phased

sequence that gradually increased in complexity and student autonomy. In
the initial weeks, students engaged in guided nature observation and pattern
discovery exercises, supported by instructor prompts, structured worksheets,
and in-class discussions to help shape their reflections. Midway through the
course, the focus shifted to ideation and analogical transfer tasks, intro-
ducing design thinking strategies―such as brainstorming, sketching, and
prototype evaluation―reinforced by curated examples and templates. In
the final phase, students used a simplified Structure Synth code template to
model their biomimetic forms. Although this stage presented greater tech-
nical challenges, instructional scaffolds―such as annotated code samples
and live coding demonstrations―helped reduce cognitive load and support
progressive skill acquisition. This stepwise structure enabled students to
build confidence as they moved from observation to conceptualization to
computational implementation.

To further support students with limited programming experience, the course

also incorporated AI-assisted coding tools such as ChatGPT. Students were
encouraged to use natural language prompts to generate or debug Structure
Synth code. These tools helped ease syntax-related difficulties, enabling stu-
dents to focus more on the underlying logic of rule-based design. However,
the quality of AI-generated code still required critical evaluation and occa-
sional correction. This AI-integration component played a key role in reducing
anxiety, bridging conceptual gaps, and fostering self-efficacy in early compu-
tational design education.

Unit 1, for instance, emphasized pattern recognition through close observa-

tion of natural elements on campus. Students created detailed and abstract
sketches, identified patterns in living organisms, and reflected on how observed
structures relate to design grammar. Homework involved group-based obser-
vation tasks, supported by pre-recorded instructional content on pattern the-
ory (e.g., Covington, 2021). This approach enabled students to build
understanding from sensory experience, gradually transitioning to abstraction

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

8
 and conceptualization, which is essential for scaffolding entry into computa-
tional and generative design thinking.

Learning objectives were aligned with students’ existing art and design knowl-
edge and scaffolded to support a gradual entry into generative rule-based
thinking. The instructional emphasis shifted from sensory observation to sym-
bolic representation through shape grammars and fractals. This progression
helped students connect new computational skills with familiar creative prac-
tices, easing the transition from concrete artistic processes to more abstract
algorithmic reasoning.

Each week concluded with structured critiques and peer feedback sessions to
reinforce conceptual clarity. Instructors provided individualized coaching to
support modeling challenges, particularly during the use of Structure Synth,
which many students initially found difficult. Table 3 shows the details of
the learning Unit 1. These structured feedback and coaching opportunities re-
flected the “Summary” and “Post-assessment” elements of the BOPPPS
model, and reinforced Kolb’s emphasis on reflection and iterative improve-
ment―fostering both self-efficacy and sustained engagement as students built
confidence with new tools.

3.2 Performance assessment

A multi-dimensional rubric was developed to assess learning outcomes
(Table 4), with input from three design faculty members to ensure validity.
The rubric included five criteria: field observation, pattern analysis, genera-
tive simulation, process coherence, and reflective synthesis. These criteria
were selected to capture the essential stages of experiential learning in design.
Observation immerses students in direct experience, while pattern analysis
fosters abstraction and interpretation. Generative simulation assesses the
translation of patterns into digital form, and soundness of process evaluates
the coherence of problem-solving. Reflection in action promotes critical
thinking and self-awareness. Together, these dimensions align with the
phases of both the BOPPPS model and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle,
ensuring that assessment supports knowledge construction through active
engagement, analysis, experimentation, and reflection. Each criterion was
rated on a four-point scale ranging from "needs improvement" to "excellent,"
in accordance with Gencel et al.’s (2021) suggestion that this format facili-
tates clear differentiation of student performance levels and supports consis-
tent evaluation.

Student learning was assessed through:

• 50 %: Evaluation of four design units (combined instructor and TA

scoring)

Experiential learning in basic design

9
Table 3 Learning unit 1

Topics Unit 1: Observe nature

Objective 1. Grasp the fundamental principles behind the formation of natural shapes.
2. Enhance abilities to observe and document natural patterns and structures.
3. Relate observations from nature to core design concepts.
Context 1. Assigned outdoor Area: The observation area is located around the university grounds.
2. Students will directly observe and document three natural objects (like animals and
plants).
3. Practice recognizing, describing, and summarizing recurring patterns, and create both
detailed sketches and abstract representations of these objects.
Prior knowledge Students possess fundamental design or art skills and knowledge appropriate for the
senior high school level.
Assessment Summative evaluation of participation, field notes, project reports and outcome briefings,
using a scale from 1 to 4, where 4 is "excellent performance" and 1 is "requires
improvement." Assess: Observation, pattern analysis, reconstruction of generative
simulation, and soundness of learning process.
Operational focus Present on-site observation techniques — such as sketching, photography, and note-taking
— during lectures. Apply these methods during fieldwork, with guidance to assist students
in recognizing and analyzing patterns in the structures of animals and plants.
Contents 1. Pre-class materials: Patterns in nature (Covington, 2021)
The golden ratio: Nature’s favorite number (TED-Ed, 2015)
Theory presentation: D’Arcy Thompson and biological form (INKtalks, 2018)
2. In-class guidelines:
Discuss field observation precautions, including skills, tools, and methods. Emphasize
attention to structure, growth, and form in plants and animals to identify patterns. Guide
students in observing campus flora and fauna. Demonstrate proper techniques and
encourage comparison with formal principles of beauty (e.g., repetition, gradient,
symmetry).
3. Homework:
Observe and document three types of animals and plants. Identify and describe recurring
patterns, and create sketches. Ensure to: observe nature outside, photograph and sketch
observations. Identify patterns and proportions (e.g., rhythmic changes), and describe
these patterns accurately.
4. Next class:
Students will present their homework. The teacher will provide individual feedback.
Activities Field observation helps connect theory to real-world patterns in nature. Students should
follow safety precautions and grasp learning objectives. They’ll start with campus
observations to face challenges and apply design principles. Ensure they form groups of
3—5 for homework and understand the requirements.
Time management 1. Watch the reference video for 50 min before class.
2. Attend 50 min of lecture, including 20 min of discussion on the video.
3. Conduct 100 min of campus observation.
4. Homework for next week will take 50 min.

• 30 %: Process documentation and reflection

• 20 %: Class participation and peer engagement

To promote fairness and consistency, performance was measured against

clearly defined expectations for each stage of the experiential learning cycle.
Observation was evaluated based on the depth of engagement with real-
world phenomena; analysis focused on the precision of generative reasoning;
simulation assessed alignment between observed patterns and coded output;
and reflection emphasized self-awareness and knowledge construction.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

10
Table 4 Rubrics for learning performance

Excellent (4 points) Good (3 points) Fair (2 points) Needs improvement

(1 point)

1. Observation Can observe and Can observe 2—3 Can observe 1—2 Has not
accurately sketch 3 types of living types of living demonstrated the
types of living things outdoors things outdoors ability to observe
things outdoors. and create rough and draw basic living things
sketches. realistic sketches. outdoors or create
sketches.
2. Pattern analysis Accurately uses Generally uses Uses only basic Fails to represent
shape grammar or shape grammar or symbols or arrows any shape
fractals to express fractals to represent to depict shape generation rules.
shape generation shape generation generation rules.
rules of observed rules with some
living things. accuracy.
3. Reconstruction of Can use Structure Can use Structure Can use Structure Can barely use
generative Synth to create Synth to create Synth to create Structure Synth,
simulation shapes closely shapes that shapes, though they resulting in shapes
resembling the somewhat resemble resemble the with minimal
observed living the observed living observed living resemblance to the
things. things. things poorly. observed living
things.
4. Soundness of Clearly includes Generally includes Partially includes Lacks a clear
learning process coherent, logically coherent, logically coherent, logically theme, with
rigorous steps from rigorous steps from rigorous steps from incoherent
observation to observation to observation to discussion or
reflection. reflection. reflection. poorly organized
steps.
5. Reflection in Clearly uses Generally uses Partially uses Fails to describe
action to construct pictures and text to pictures and text to pictures and text to achieving the
knowledge describe achieving describe achieving describe achieving learning objective
the learning the learning the learning through reflection
objective through objective through objective through and personal
reflection and reflection and reflection and growth.
personal growth. personal growth. personal growth.

In addition to the rubrics, motivational and self-efficacy scales (MSLQ and

IDSEAS) were administered pre- and post-intervention for research analysis
but were not included in the grading scheme. This performance assessment
strategy aimed to capture both the visible outputs of student work and the
internalized learning processes, thereby reinforcing the study’s emphasis on
self-efficacy and experiential engagement.

4 Methods
4.1 Experiment design
This study adopted a quasi-experimental “one-group pretest-posttest design”
to evaluate the effectiveness of the experiential learning program. Although
this design is subject to well-documented limitations, it remains a practical
choice in educational research―such as the current study―when random

Experiential learning in basic design

11
 assignment or control groups are infeasible due to ethical and logistical con-
straints (Knapp, 2016). To enhance validity and reliability, validated and
pilot-tested measurement instruments were employed, and the performance
assessment rubric was developed and reviewed by three faculty members to
ensure content validity. Quantitative findings were triangulated with qualita-
tive data from student reflections and peer feedback. The intervention (X)
was the nine-week experiential teaching program, and outcomes were
measured using a combination of pretest (O1) and posttest (O2) instruments,
as illustrated in Table 5. In addition, Table 6 summarizes paired-sample t-test
results comparing pre- and post-test scores for motivation, strategy use, and
overall MSLQ. For motivation (Pair 1), the mean increase of 0.212 was not
statistically significant (t = 1.448, p = .159). Full results for Pairs 2 and 4
are also provided. Significance was set at p<.05.

Three research questions guided the analysis:

RQ1. Does experiential learning improve learning motivation in basic design?

RQ2. Does improved motivation enhance self-efficacy?
RQ3. Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between learning motivation
and performance?

4.2 Participants
The study involved 29 first-year undergraduate students (11 male and 18 fe-
male) enrolled in the Basic Design course at a public university in Taiwan.
One student withdrew during the intervention due to personal reasons, leaving

Table 5 Research framework.

Pretest Intervention Posttest
O1 X O2
MSLQ MSLQ
The experiential learning
teaching program
IDSEAS IDSEAS

Rubrics

Table 6 t-test of MSLQ results

Pairwise difference
mean standard deviation standard error t significance (two-tailed)

Pair 1 PstMotivation - PreMotivation .212 .775 .147 1.448 .159

Pair 2 PstStrategy - PreStrategy .107 .436 .083 1.851 .205
Pair 4 PstMSLQ - PreMSLQ .137 .513 .097 1.415 .169

Note: ∗p<.05, ∗
∗p<.01.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

12
 28 participants in the final analysis. All participants had received approxi-
mately one to three years of prior training in senior high school-level art or
design programs, focusing primarily on foundational skills such as drawing,
color theory, visual composition, and basic three-dimensional form. Their pre-
vious education was mainly structured around traditional, instructor-led ap-
proaches, with limited opportunities for active or reflective learning. Thus,
the course was designed to bridge the gap between their existing knowledge
gained through conventional methods and the new competencies fostered by
experiential learning―namely, engaging directly with materials, reflecting on
design processes, and developing self-efficacy and motivation through active
participation.

4.3 Instruments
Multiple instruments were used to assess the outcomes of the course.

• Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ): Used to assess

learning motivation and strategy use (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). It has
demonstrated high internal reliability: Cronbach’s alpha: .74—.87 (Garcia
& Pintrich, 2013).
• Industrial Design Self-Efficacy and Anxiety Scale (IDSEAS): Adapted to
assess students’ perceived competence in areas such as modeling, problem
solving, and implementation (Chien et al., 2022; Fantz et al., 2011).
• Performance Rubric: Developed for this course to evaluate students’ obser-
vational, analytical, generative, and reflective competencies. Five dimen-
sions were assessed across four learning units (Table 4).
• Reflection Report: Students’ written reflections in their final reports were
qualitatively analyzed to capture experiential engagement and their ability
to translate field observations into parametric design logic.

Note that MSLQ and IDSEAS were administered both before and after the
course to evaluate shifts in psychological variables. Learning performance
was assessed only post-intervention. The combination of quantitative assess-
ment of assignments and qualitative analysis of reflective reports provided a
comprehensive understanding of learning outcomes across cognitive, affective,
and creative domains.

4.4 Data analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics and paired-
sample t-tests were used to evaluate changes in motivation (MSLQ) and self-
efficacy (IDSEAS) from pre-to post-intervention. Reliability tests confirmed
strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >.84 for all scales). For quali-
tative analysis, a basic exploratory inductive approach was used. First, a
word cloud was generated using Voyant Tools (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2016),
a web-based text analysis environment, to visualize the most frequently

Experiential learning in basic design

13
occurring terms in students’ reflective reports, providing an initial sense of
common themes. Based on this, the author and a research assistant manually
reviewed relevant excerpts and grouped them into broad thematic categories.
These groupings were then interpreted to extract insights into students’
perceived changes in motivation, self-efficacy, and engagement with experien-
tial learning. While the approach was informal, it offered a practical means to
capture emergent patterns in a small-scale classroom setting.

For RQ3, a mediation analysis was conducted using linear regression to deter-
mine whether self-efficacy mediated the relationship between motivation and
learning performance. Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step model:

• Step 1 tested the effect of motivation on performance (c path).

• Step 2 examined the effect of motivation on self-efficacy (a path).
• Step 3 tested the effect of self-efficacy on performance, controlling for moti-
vation (b and c’ paths).

The Sobel test was applied to verify the statistical significance of the indirect
(mediated) effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982). This methodological
approach allowed the researchers to move beyond surface-level comparisons
and explore how experiential learning influences learning outcomes through
psychological mechanisms such as self-belief and confidence. For example,
Preacher and Hayes (2004) demonstrated the application of the Sobel test in
educational and psychological research to assess whether changes in self-
efficacy mediated the relationship between instructional interventions and stu-
dent performance. By integrating performance-based assessment with vali-
dated psychological scales, the study ensured both contextual relevance and
methodological rigor.

5 Results
5.1 Student work samples
To provide qualitative insights into student learning, examples of student out-
puts were analyzed across the four thematic units. Pseudonyms were used to
anonymize student identities.

5.1.1 Unit 1: observe nature

Jessica observed the Crinum asiaticum (poison bulb) and identified recurring
visual patterns in its growth. Her abstract sketch revealed a structural logic
in the transformation of cascading leaf layers (see Figure 2).

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

14
Figure 2 Observing (left) the poison bulb and decomposing (right) its abstract structure

5.1.2 Unit 2: analyzing rhythm in nature

Edward focused on the rhythmic behavior of Ficus pumila vines across
campus buildings. He used Structure Synth to simulate the recurring spatial
cadence of the vine’s growth pattern (see Figure 3).

5.1.3 Unit 3: self-similarity in nature

Jessica analyzed fractal patterns on the surface of a cantaloupe. She inter-
preted the fruit’s netted skin through the lens of self-similarity and recursive
geometry (see Figure 4).

5.1.4 Unit 4: gradient shapes in nature

Yvonne explored growth gradients in the zebra plant (Haworthiopsis fasciata).
She used simulation overlays to express changes in leaf size and angle, demon-
strating mastery of gradient-based generative rules. As shown in Figure 5, the
process involved observing the zebra plant, writing Structure Synth code,

Figure 3 Analyzing (left) the rhythm in vines, exploring (middle) its shape grammar, and simulating (right) the rhythm of vines

Figure 4 Observing (left) the cantaloupe, identifying (middle) self-similarity in the netted skin, and exploring (right) generative rules

Experiential learning in basic design

15
Figure 5 Observing (far left) the zebra plant, writing (left) the Structure Synth code, computer-generated (right) model, mapping (far right)
the model on the photo

generating a computational model, and mapping it onto a photo to visualize

the biological—computational link.

5.2 Students’ learning experience

5.2.1 Key themes in reflection
A word cloud analysis of participant reports revealed frequent references to
“nature” (87), “design” (82), “research” (62), “shape” (60), “observation”
(53), “laws” (51), and “programming” (30). These keywords point to a strong
focus on experiential learning processes―particularly observing nature, iden-
tifying patterns, and transforming them into design ideas. While students
found value in uncovering the “laws” of “plants” and “shapes” through direct
observation, many expressed difficulty with “programming,” suggesting a gap
between intuitive design thinking and computational execution.

5.2.2 Discovering nature’s hidden patterns

Among the themes that emerged from students’ reflective reports, the experi-
ence of field observation was particularly meaningful. Many students
described a sense of wonder at discovering previously unnoticed structures
in nature. Careful observation of plants revealed underlying order and rules
that mirrored textbook knowledge.

If you don’t observe carefully, you won’t discover these magical laws.
(Victoria)

When I squatted down and observed them carefully, I found they are not
only cute but also have rules. (Katherine)

This assignment allowed us to experience the beauty of nature we usually

miss in bustling Taipei. (Michael)

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

16
 5.2.3 From observation to insight
Participants recognized the link between natural forms and mathematical or
design principles. Several reported an evolving ability to perceive order in
complex shapes.

After several observations, I noticed complex shapes with similar rules

evolving from simple geometric figures. I began to see mathematically
beautiful shapes everywhere in life. (Daniel)

Nature revealed patterns everywhere, such as beauty principles and the

golden ratio. As a designer, I realized nature can inspire when lacking
ideas. (Fiona)

Constant outdoor activities and online research made me appreciate

discovering new things in nature. (Victoria)

5.2.4 Challenges in simulation and coding

Learning Structure Synth posed significant difficulty, especially for those un-
familiar with coding. However, most participants eventually overcame these
hurdles through persistence and peer or instructor support.

The biggest difficulty was encountering a bottleneck with Structure Synth

coding …, so I sought help from classmates and found a feasible solution.
(Daniel)

The most challenging part was the modeling software …, but my progress
from ignorance to a rough understanding of the code was significant.
(Katherine)

I struggled with Structure Synth software at first. After explanations from

teachers and senior students, I became more familiar with it, learning how
nature and technology connect. (Hannah)

5.2.5 Programming as creative expression

Despite early frustration, many students found that coding offered a new lens
to interpret and recreate nature. Simulating plant forms with Structure Synth
enhanced both their technical and design skills.

Simulating a white daisy with Structure Synth made me appreciate na-

ture’s complexity and sparked my interest in both nature and program-
ming. (Liam)

I found it fascinating to see how Shape Grammar rules create beautiful

patterns when applied to different objects. (Bella)

Experiential learning in basic design

17
 Initially unfamiliar with coding, I gradually understood its logic, and suc-
cessfully building code gave me a strong sense of accomplishment. (Grace)

5.2.6 Rethinking basic design through nature

Students described a shift from learning through textbooks to engaging with
real-world phenomena. They appreciated that foundational design principles
like symmetry and the golden ratio were embedded in nature.

This class and report deepened my understanding, showing that personal

observation is crucial for learning. (Yvonne)

This course differed from past experiences; observing nature revealed the
simple beauty we often miss and highlighted the importance of such
studies in design. (Sarah)

5.2.7 Connecting basic to advanced design

For several participants, the project bridged basic design education with future
design ambitions. Concepts like fractals, geometry, and shape grammar were
seen as valuable for long-term growth.

I want to explore fractals and shape grammar further to inspire future

design. Combining observation with digital tools has deepened my under-
standing of nature and design principles. (Grace)

The finished product gave me a sense of accomplishment, proving that I

can present nature’s wonders in new ways and integrate technology into
my work. (Henry)

Basic design involves applying nature’s formal beauty principles to daily

life. (Edward)

5.3 Results of quasi experiment

5.3.1 Learning performance
As shown in Figure 6, the five performance indicators assessed by rubric were
rated consistently across students, with an average score of 2.764 out of 4
(SD = .767). Cronbach’s alpha for the rubric was .961, indicating excellent in-
ternal consistency. Inter-rater reliability, measured via intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC), was .888, showing high agreement between evaluators.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

18
Figure 6 Average learning performance (error bars indicating standard deviations, n = 28)

5.3.2 Learning motivation

As shown in Figure 7, pre- and post-test scores using the MSLQ showed a mi-
nor but statistically non-significant improvement. The average motivation
score increased by 2.75 % (p = 0.169), with subscales showing small gains
in motivation (4.15 %, p = 0.205) and strategy use (2.21 %, p = 0.159).

These modest improvements may reflect conflicting influences: students

demonstrated strong engagement with field observation activities, yet many
encountered challenges with Structure Synth and the unfamiliar logic of para-
metric modeling. The challenges of learning and debugging code in a syntax-
based tool like Structure Synth may have discouraged some students and
limited motivational gains. This interpretation is supported by qualitative find-
ings in Section 5.3.1, where several students described programming as “diffi-
cult,” “abstract,” or “frustrating,” highlighting a cognitive gap between
intuitive design processes and algorithmic thinking. The high standard devia-
tions in test scores further suggest diverse reactions to these technical demands,
reinforcing the conclusion that enthusiasm for fieldwork was not sufficient to
offset the steep learning curve associated with computational tools.

Figure 7 Comparison of MSLQ pre- and post-test average values (error bars indicating standard deviations, n = 28)

Experiential learning in basic design

19
 5.3.3 Self-efficacy
Unlike learning motivation, students’ self-efficacy improved significantly
across several dimensions of the IDSEAS. Increases were especially pro-
nounced in problem-solving and modeling experiment subscales, indicating
that students gained confidence in their ability to approach and complete com-
plex tasks. Figure 8 shows that mean scores for the four IDSEAS subscales
ranged from 6.527 to 6.708, with standard deviations from .598 to .746. The
class average increased from 6.596 (SD = .494) to 6.988 (SD = .542). The
Cronbach’s alpha for self-efficacy was .869 (pretest) and .846 (posttest),
showing high internal consistency.

The t-test results in Table 7 show a significant increase in the overall IDSEAS
posttest score by .392 points (p = 0.002), a 5.94 % improvement. Standard de-
viations ranged from .047 to .083. Significant improvements were found in
problem solving (p = 0.012, 5.25 %) and modeling experiments (p = 0.044,
5.58 %). Although improvements in information collection (p = 0.184,
2.81 %) and project implementation (p = 0.088, 5.06 %) were not significant,
there was a slight overall enhancement in self-efficacy, with the greatest gains
in problem solving and modeling.

Figure 8 IDSEAS pretest and posttest mean comparison (error bars indicating standard deviations, n = 28)

Table 7 t-test of IDSEAS results

Pairwise difference t significance (two-tailed)

mean standard deviation standard error

Pair 1 PstInfoColl - PreInfoColl .219 .723 .137 1.600 .121

Pair 2 PstProbSolv - PreProbSolv .352 .688 .130 2.706 .012∗
Pair 4 PstModeProt - PreModeProt .369 .532 .174 �4.301 <.001∗∗∗
PstProjReal - PreProjReal .330 .986 .186 1.773 .088
PstSEAS - PreSEAS .392 .458 .117 2.596 .015∗

Note: ∗p<.05, ∗
∗p<.01
∗
∗∗p<.001.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

20
 5.3.4 Mediating effect of self-efficacy
This study conducted a mediation effect analysis using linear regression, with
Y as learning performance (rubrics score), X as learning motivation strategies
(MSLQ post-test score), and M as self-efficacy (IDSEAS post-test score). The
analysis, detailed in Table 8, followed these steps:

Step 1: Tested the total effect of X on Y, finding a significant coefficient

(c = 0.420) (p = 0.026).
Step 2: Tested the effect of X on M, with a significant coefficient (a = 0.381)
(p = 0.046).
Step 3: Tested the effect of M on Y, controlling for X. The coefficient
(b = 0.416) was significant (p = 0.028), but (c’ = .262) was not (p

Table 8 Regression analysis of mediating effects

B SE ß R2 Adj. R2 Sig.

Step 1 .177 .145

The total effect of learning .394 .167 .420 .026∗
motivation strategies on learning
performance (c)
Step 2 .145 .112
Direct effect of learning motivation .219 .104 .381 .046∗
strategies on self-efficacy (a)
Step 3 .324 .270
After controlling for the influence of .677 .290 .416 .028∗
learning motivation strategies, the
direct effect of self-efficacy on learning
performance (b)
After controlling for the influence of .246 .167 .262 .153
self-efficacy, the direct effect of learning
motivation strategies on learning
performance (c’)

Note: ∗p<.05, ∗
∗p<.01.

Figure 9 Mediation model showing how self-efficacy mediates the relationship between learning motivation and performance in computational
design learning. Note: ∗p<.05, ∗
∗p<.01

Experiential learning in basic design

21
 = .153). Since (c’) is smaller and less significant than (c), M shows a
“completed mediation effect.”

The mediation analysis revealed that motivation alone did not directly
improve performance; rather, self-efficacy acted as a key intermediary. In
other words, motivation enhanced performance through its impact on self-
efficacy. Figure 9 illustrates the mediation effect analysis. Learning motivation
strategies positively affect self-efficacy (path a: a = .381, p < .05), and self-
efficacy positively affects learning performance (path b: b = .416, p < .05).
However, the direct effect of learning motivation on performance is not signif-
icant (c’ = .262, p = 0.153). The indirect effect through self-efficacy is signifi-
cant (path a∗b = .159). The Sobel test confirms this mediation effect
(p = .118), as shown in Table 9.

Overall, the participants reported gaining valuable experiences from field

observation, recording, and analysis, leading to a deeper understanding of
basic design’s focus on discovery, research, and experimentation. The experi-
ential learning significantly enhanced participants’ self-efficacy and learning
performance, particularly in problem-solving and modeling experiments.
These findings suggest that in design education, especially when incorporating
new computational tools, building students’ confidence (self-efficacy) may be a
more effective strategy than attempting to directly enhance motivation.

6 Discussion
This section addresses the three research questions guiding the study and inte-
grates recent theoretical perspectives and empirical findings to interpret our re-
sults and their implications for design education.

6.1 Addressing research questions

RQ1. Does experiential learning improve learning motivation in basic design?

The study found no statistically significant increase in overall learning motiva-

tion, despite students’ active engagement with nature-based observation tasks.
This result echoes Hanik et al. (2025), who reported that experiential learning
may not enhance motivation when paired with complex, unfamiliar

Table 9 Sobel test

path Unstandardized Std. Error Sobel Test Std. Error p-value

coefficients Coefficient B coefficients statistic

a .219 .104 1.536 .095 .118

b .677 .290

Note: ∗p<.05, ∗
∗p<.01.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

22
 technologies. Although students valued the observation of natural patterns,
the cognitive demands of Structure Synth led to frustration. This tension is
well explained by Expectancy-Value Theory (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), which
posits that motivation arises from both task value and expectancy of success,
and by Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), which highlights the negative
impact of extraneous cognitive load―mental effort caused by poorly designed
or unnecessarily complex instructional elements. These findings also align with
Uysal and Topalo�glu (2017), who stressed the importance of representational
training to reduce barriers in computational design education.

Additionally, Dorland (2024) demonstrated that scaffolding experiential

learning with design thinking increases motivation. Our results support this
claim, suggesting that motivational outcomes depend not only on task content
but also on the quality of instructional design and learner support. In this
course, scaffolding was integrated at multiple levels―from field observation
guides to ideation templates and a beginner-friendly Structure Synth code tem-
plate, as detailed in Section 3.1. These instructional supports were intended to
lower technical barriers while helping students bridge intuitive visual thinking
with computational logic.

RQ2. Does improved motivation enhance self-efficacy?

Although the correlation between motivation and self-efficacy was statistically

modest, self-efficacy improved more noticeably. This partially supports
Ghbari et al. (2024), who found that autonomy-supportive environments
enhance academic engagement through increased self-efficacy. In our study,
students benefitted from mastery experiences―successfully completing
computational modeling tasks with the help of coaching and peer collabora-
tion―consistent with Bandura’s (2010) theory that mastery experiences are
the most effective way to build self-efficacy.

RQ3. Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between learning motivation

and performance?

Regression analysis confirmed that self-efficacy significantly mediated the rela-

tionship between learning motivation and performance. Although motivation
alone did not predict performance, its indirect effect through self-efficacy was
statistically significant. This finding aligns with Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
mediation framework and supports the conclusions of Hanik et al. (2025)
and Schunk (1995), who observed that belief in personal competence is essen-
tial for translating motivation into achievement. As students overcame initial
technical challenges, their growing confidence enabled higher engagement and
better outcomes.

Experiential learning in basic design

23
 6.2 Implications for design education
These findings suggest that fostering self-efficacy is more impactful than sim-
ply enhancing motivation in early computational design education. To sup-
port student learning, instructor should scaffold instruction by providing
clear examples (e.g., nature-inspired cases or beginner-friendly code templates
that demonstrate design grammars), timely feedback (e.g., real-time support
via LINE or Google Classroom to address coding challenges and reinforce
progress), and structured opportunities for success (e.g., tiered assignments
that build from simple to complex tasks, or AI tools to reduce coding anxiety
and aid idea translation). Introducing AI-based tools such as ChatGPT―-
which can convert natural language descriptions into executable code―may
lower entry barriers for novice learners; however, the quality and accuracy
of generated code can vary and often require validation or revision with
instructor support. This instructional potential aligns with theories of scaf-
folding and guided learning (Collins et al., 1991) and with Vygotsky’s (1978)
concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, where learners benefit from
structured support just beyond their current capabilities. As illustrated in
Figure 10, natural language interfaces help maintain engagement by allowing
students to visualize rules and receive immediate feedback, reducing frustra-
tion from syntax errors.

The difficulty many students experienced in expressing shape rules algorithmi-

cally reflects the need for early training in formal representation and compu-
tational thinking (Uysal & Topalo� glu, 2017). Incorporating AI tools as
adaptive scaffolding within each student’s Zone of Proximal Development―as

Figure 10 Using ChatGPT to write a Python program for self-similarity of tree branches (left) and then execute the program to automatically
draw a tree (right). Note: Top left (translated from Chinese): “You — Write a Python program to draw a tree-like branching structure. Allow
users to set the number of branches. The branching angles should be randomly determined between 2 and 5◦ . The overall tree should be asym-
metrical, and a user interface should be provided.” ChatGPT reply (translated): “ChatGPT — Here is a slightly modified version, so that the
whole tree is not symmetrical.”

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

24
 conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) ―can help address this challenge. These
tools should not replace critical thinking or creative exploration but should
serve as facilitators that expand access and promote reflective design practice.

6.3 Contribution and limitations

This study contributes to the study on experiential learning in design by inte-
grating field observation, computational modeling, and AI support. It also
provides empirical evidence for the mediating role of self-efficacy in perfor-
mance outcomes―especially under conditions of technical complexity
(Hayat et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022). However, the quasi-experimental design
and limited sample size restrict the generalizability of results. As
Boucharenc (2006) and Caner Y€ uksel and Dinç Uyaro� glu (2021) suggest,
diverse institutional and cultural contexts influence basic design education.

Future studies should compare AI-supported and syntax-based modeling ap-

proaches across multiple institutions and include longitudinal follow-ups to
assess the durability of self-efficacy gains. Basic design courses may incorpo-
rate AI-assisted design tools, such as natural language-driven generators, to
help students describe shape rules or generate simulations without requiring
syntax-based coding. These tools could reduce technical barriers and cognitive
overload, thereby improving motivation while preserving the educational ben-
efits of pattern analysis and simulation. However, the accuracy and reliability
of generative AI outputs remain variable, particularly when translating com-
plex visual or geometric intentions into executable code (Liu et al., 2024;
Talaver & Vakaliuk, 2025). Thus, instructors should monitor AI-generated
content critically and combine such tools with pedagogical scaffolds to ensure
meaningful learning outcomes. Integrating generative AI tools may still offer
valuable support for design students with limited coding backgrounds, poten-
tially boosting both self-efficacy and creative confidence.

7 Conclusion
This study examined the impact of an experiential learning model―grounded
in observation, abstraction, and computational simulation―on first-year in-
dustrial design students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and learning performance.

The core finding is that self-efficacy, rather than motivation alone, drives per-
formance in computationally enhanced design education. Although nature-
based observation stimulated student interest, it was the successful engage-
ment with modeling tools and reflective learning that led to meaningful perfor-
mance improvements. These mastery experiences were facilitated by
structured support, peer collaboration, and instructor feedback.

Motivation did not directly predict performance, but it contributed indirectly

through its positive effect on self-efficacy. This mediation effect clarifies the

Experiential learning in basic design

25
psychological mechanism through which experiential learning influences out-
comes―a finding consistent with Bandura (2010), Pintrich and De Groot
(1990), and Ghbari et al. (2024). It suggests that motivation must be accompa-
nied by competence-building experiences to yield educational benefits.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can serve as scaffolds for novice de-
signers, translating natural language into visual outputs and easing the transi-
tion to computational design. This approach draws on educational theories of
scaffolding and guided learning (Collins et al., 1991) and aligns with
Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, where
learners benefit from structured support just beyond their current abilities.
By reducing technical barriers and enhancing formative feedback, such tools
offer a promising direction for adapting experiential learning to 21st-century
design education.

In conclusion, this research highlights self-efficacy as a foundational compo-

nent of student success in design environments that integrate emerging tech-
nologies. A curriculum that prioritizes mastery experiences, reflective
practice, and adaptive scaffolding can empower students to navigate the com-
plexities of modern design. These insights offer a roadmap for future innova-
tion in basic design education, bridging analog intuition with digital
abstraction and preparing students to thrive in increasingly computational
design fields.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported
in this paper.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hung-Hsiang Wang: Supervision, Methodology, Writing — original draft,
Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Writing — re-
view & editing, Software, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis.

Funding
This research was funded by Ministry of Education, Taiwan, under grant
number PHA1120191.

Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

26
 References
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. In The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (4th
ed.). (pp. 1—3) Wiley. [Link]
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinc-
tion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical con-
siderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173—1182.
[Link]
Bettaieb, D. M. (2017). Proposed strategy in teaching design fundamentals for un-
derstanding the relationship between idea and idea’s projection. Art and Design
Review, 5(2), 129—140. [Link]
Boucharenc, C. G. (2006). Research on basic design education: An international
survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1—30.
[Link]
Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. McGraw Hill.
Caner Y€ _ (2021). Experiential learning in basic
uksel, Ç., & Dinç Uyaro�glu, I.
design studio: Body, space and the design process. International Journal of
Art and Design Education, 40(3), 508—525. [Link]
Chang, J., & Lu, P. (2025). Examining vocational education in Indo-Pacific coun-
tries and implications for Taiwan’s vocational education. In The asian confer-
ence on education 2024: Official conference proceedings (pp. 661—670). https://
[Link]/10.22492/issn.2186-5892.2025.59.
Chien, Y. H., Lin, K. Y., Hsiao, H. S., Chang, Y. S., & Chan, S. H. (2022).
Measuring industrial design self-efficacy and anxiety. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 32, 1317—1336. [Link]
s10798-020-09648-0.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 38—46, 6—11.
Covington, M., Jr. (2021). Patterns in nature [Video]. YouTube. [Link]
[Link]/watch?v=gJqciV7PceA.
de Sausmarez, M. (2001). Basic design: The dynamics of visual form (2nd ed.). Her-
bert Press.
Dorland, A. (2024). Designing our thinking: Examining the effects of experiential
learning and design thinking on creativity, innovation, and collaboration skills
development in the undergraduate classroom. The Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(1). [Link]
cjsotlrcacea.2024.1.14235.
Fantz, T. D., Siller, T. J., & Demiranda, M. A. (2011). Pre-collegiate factors influ-
encing the self-efficacy of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 100(3), 604—623. [Link]
G€ok, T., & Erdo� gan, A. (2017). The impact of vocational high school students’
backgrounds on their mathematics achievements. Eurasia Journal of Mathe-
matics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4987—4994. [Link]
10.12973/eurasia.2017.00977a.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the
classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In
D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and per-
formance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127—153). Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (2013). Assessing students’ motivation and learning
strategies in the classroom context: The motivated strategies for learning ques-
tionnaire. In M. Birenbaum, & F. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of

Experiential learning in basic design

27
 achievements, learning processes, and prior knowledge (pp. 319—339). Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Gencel, I. E., Erdogan, M., Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2021). Rubric for expe-
riential training. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4),
188—211. [Link]
Ghbari, T. A., Badareen, G. S., Al-Smadi, R. T., & Damra, J. K. (2024). The
mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between self-determination
motive and academic engagement among undergraduate students. Participa-
tory Educational Research, 11(3), 43—58. [Link]
per.[Link].
Hamilton, R. (1961). About art teaching, basically. Motif, 8(Winter), 17—23.
Hanik, K., Pramono, S. E., Yulianto, A., & Utomo, C. B. (2025). The effect of
self-efficacy on academic performance: The mediating role of adaptation and
motivation in seafaring students. Journal of Ecohumanism, 4(1), 1739—1750.
[Link]
Hayat, A. A., Shateri, K., Amini, M., et al. (2020). Relationships between aca-
demic self-efficacy, learning-related emotions, and metacognitive learning stra-
tegies with academic performance in medical students: A structural equation
model. BMC Medical Education, 20(1). [Link]
01995-9. Article 76.
Hettithanthri, U., & Hansen, P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of
architectural education: A narrative literature review. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 32, 2343—2364. [Link]
s10798-021-09694-2.
INKtalks. (2018). Theory presentation: D’Arcy Thompson and biological form
[video]. YouTube. [Link]
Knapp, T. R. (2016). Why is the one-group pretest—posttest design still used?
Clinical Nursing Research, 25(5), 467—472. [Link]
1054773816666280.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development (2nd ed.). FT Press.
Leopold, C. (2013). Precise experiments: Relations between mathematics, philos-
ophy and design at Ulm school of design. Nexus Network Journal, 15(2),
363—380. [Link]
Li, X., Pu, R., & Nutteera, P. (2022). The influence of achievement motivation on
college students’ employability: A chain mediation analysis of self-efficacy and
academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 972910. [Link]
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.972910.
Liao, C. H., Chiang, C. T., & Chen, I. C. (2022). Exploring the relationship be-
tween computational thinking and learning satisfaction for non-STEM college
students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
19(1). [Link] Article 43.
Lin, K. Y., Chien, Y. H., & Hsiao, H. S. (2019). Developing computational
thinking through integration of design and technology education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 395—420. [Link]
10.1007/s10798-018-9453-4.
Liu, Y., Tantithamthavorn, C., Liu, Y., & Li, L. (2024). On the reliability and ex-
plainability of language models for program generation. ACM Transactions on
Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(5). [Link]
3641540. Article 126.
M€antele, M. (2021). Grundlehre at the Ulm school of design: A survey of basic
design teaching. In A. S. Bessa (Ed.), Form and feeling: The making of

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

28
 concretism in Brazil (pp. 77—88). Fordham University Press. [Link]
10.2307/j.ctv1198zw7.7.
Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st cen-
tury. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13—49.
[Link]
Naeem, R., Kohtam€ aki, M., & Parida, V. (2024). Artificial intelligence enabled
product—service innovation: Past achievements and future directions. Review
of Managerial Science, 19, 2149—2192. [Link]
00757-x.
Oswald, D. (2022). Cybernetics, operations research and information theory at
the Ulm School of Design and its influence on Latin America. AI & Society,
37, 1045—1057. [Link]
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 82(1), 33—40. [Link]
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (2nd ed.). Merrill Company.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717—731. [Link]
BF03206553.
Ranjan, M. P. (2007). Lessons from Bauhaus, Ulm and NID: Role of basic design
in PG education. In V. S. Katiyar, & S. Mehta (Eds.), Proceedings of design
education: Tradition and modernity (pp. 2—9).
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In
J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research,
and application (pp. 281—303). Plenum Press. [Link]
4419-6868-5_10.
Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2016). Voyant tools [Web application]. [Link]
[Link].
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in struc-
tural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290—321. [Link]
10.2307/270723.
Spitz, R. (2002). HfG Ulm: The view behind the foreground: The political history of
the Ulm school of design(1953—1968). Edition Axel Menges.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257—285. [Link]
1202_4.
Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to
measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal
of Science Education, 27(6), 639—654. [Link]
0950069042000323737.
T€
urker, P. M., & Pala, F. K. (2020). The effect of algorithm education on stu-
dents’ computer programming self-efficacy perceptions and computational
thinking skills. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools,
3(3), 1—15. [Link]
Takayasu, K. (2017). Criticism of the Bauhaus concept in the Ulm school of
design. The Journal of the Asian Conference of Design History and Theory, 2,
9—18. [Link]
Talaver, O. V., & Vakaliuk, T. A. (2025). A model for improving the accuracy of
educational content created by generative AI. CEUR Workshop Proceedings
149—158.

Experiential learning in basic design

29
TED-Ed. (2015). The golden ratio. Nature’s favorite number — TED-Ed [Video].
YouTube. [Link] [Link]
[Link]/watch?v=4TF6mMUe3FYTuan H., Chin, C. & Shieh, S. (2005).
The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation
towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6),
639—654.
Uysal, V.Ş., & Topalo�glu, F. (2017). Bridging the gap: A manual primer into
design computing in the context of basic design education. International Jour-
nal of Art and Design Education, 36(1), 21—38. [Link]
jade.12048.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman
(Eds.), Mind in Society: Development of higher psychological processes. Har-
vard University Press. [Link]
Wu, C., He, X., & Jiang, H. (2022). Advanced and effective teaching design based
on BOPPPS model. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education
and Life Long Learning, 32(5), 650—661. [Link]
IJCEELL.2022.125731.
Yeomans, R. (1988). Basic design and the pedagogy of Richard Hamilton. Journal
of Art & Design Education, 7(2), 155—173. [Link]
8070.1988.tb00434.x.
Yusof, N. S. H. C., Razak, N. F. A., Nordin, N. I., & Zulkfli, S. N. (2021). Self-
efficacy, motivation, learning strategy and their impacts on academic perfor-
mance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sci-
ences, 11(9), 451—457. [Link]

Design Studies Vol 99 No. C Month 2025

30