Authors : Dr. Ayari Chaima

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/7b6e7uru

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct1623

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : As generative artificial intelligence transforms software development and digital design practices, engineering education must address the interplay between technical expertise, an understanding of user needs, and critical judgment. This article examines the contribution of UX Design education to this evolution, using the Double Diamond model as a framework for structuring the design process. The research is based on a pedagogical experiment conducted at the École Supérieure Privée d’Ingénierie et de Technologies (ESPRIT) in Tunisia, as part of a 21-hour module for fourth-year students in web and mobile development during the 2025–2026 academic year. The methodological approach is based on the observation of teaching practices and the analysis of student work, including user interviews, personas, usage scenarios, and prototypes. The Double Diamond framework organizes the process into four phases: discover, define, develop, and deliver. It allows for an examination of how students explore usage scenarios, reframe problems, develop solutions, and subject their proposals to evaluation. The article also proposes a cross-cutting examination of the role of generative artificial intelligence in these phases, distinguishing between assisted production and the validation of design choices. It advances the hypothesis that teaching UX design can help broaden the skill set of future engineers, provided that technical mastery is integrated with human understanding, experimentation, and decision-making responsibility. This exploratory research proposes an analytical framework for studying this integration without presupposing the effects of the approach prior to the analysis of empirical data

Keywords : UX Design; Double Diamond; Engineering Education; Generative Artificial Intelligence; Design Thinking; HumanCentered Design; Cross-Disciplinary Skills.

References :

1. R. Buchanan, “Wicked problems in design thinking,” Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 5-21, 1992.
2. N. Cross, Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, 2006.
3. S. Vial, Le design, 2nd ed. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France, 2017.
4. K. Dorst, “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application,” Design Studies, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 521-532, 2011.
5. C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey, and L. J. Leifer, “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 103-120, 2005.
6. Y. K. Dwivedi et al., ““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, vol. 71, Article 102642, 2023.
7. International Organization for Standardization, Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems, ISO Standard No. 9241-210:2019, 2019.
8. E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, Article 102274, 2023.
9. K. Krippendorff, The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. CRC Press, 2006.
10. D. A. Norman, The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books, 2013.
11. R. Razzouk and V. Shute, “What is design thinking and why is it important?,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 330-348, 2012.