THINKING VS. CREATING. HANDMADE VS DIGITAL (AI), GOOD PRACTICES FOR GENERATING NEW IDEAS IN COMMUNICATION DESIGN, MULTIMEDIA OR AUDIOVISUALS PROJECTS

In today's context, we are living the digitalization paradigm, in which new digital Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools are springing up at a frenetic pace. In the context of the higher education classroom, it can be seen that higher education students are increasingly looking to shorten the distance between the various relevant stages of the project challenges proposed by the teacher. They want to do it quickly and well. In most cases, the “thinking vs. creating” stage of the design methodology falls far short of what is expected. They prefer the dizzying speed of the answer suggested/given by ChatGPT or another Generative AI, rather than validating this content with research/analysis in credible sources (credible information sites or scientific articles), or through the teacher. The data/content generated by AI is often inconsistent and unreliable. The act of thinking vs. creating is a cognitive act, exclusively human, because it is solitary, requires concentration, research and analysis of information obtained, on which critical and creative thinking is crucial, to raise with clarity and focus the materialization of the idea that the student proposes in the context of teaching-learning in the classroom. The design methodology proposed for design, multimedia or audiovisual work has four stages: first “briefing” - launches problem/challenge; Second: “thinking vs. creating” - creative process/ideation; Third: ‘Materialization’ - creation in the way referred to by Ellen Lupton (2016) in ‘Intuition, Action, Creation - Design Thinking’, Fourth: “Solution” - in this, it always presupposes three fundamental criteria in the final output of the work, originality, relevance and creativity. In a classroom context (practical-laboratory), students create, develop and materialize creative processes using mind maps and moodboards, made manually, in drawing and/or handwriting plans, in A2 format. Initially, they question, they have doubts, because they simply aren't used to going “outside digital”, or rather, to leaving their comfort zone, and they create some initial resistance to the process. In a second phase, they realize the relevance of this technique/working tool within the creative process. They then understand, more assertively and clearly, that good ideas don't just fall out of the sky. At the end of the creative process (Mind map), the students obtain very surprising results based on good teaching-learning practices with pedagogical innovation, as Godin (2023) reiterates that the magic of the creative process lies in the fact that it has no magic. Therefore, students are aware, on the one hand, that AI speeds up, automates and frees us from time-consuming stages of the creative process, on the other hand, it also requires the preservation of human cognitive function in the validation of its results. In short, an online study/survey was carried out among higher education students in Portugal (polytechnic and university), attending courses in Communication Design, Multimedia and Audiovisuals, which resulted in a robust sample of 256 responses in total. It was found that 64.8% use ChatGPT; 28.9% use Capcut; 19.5 use Copilot; 13.3% use Adobe Firefly; 11.7% use DALL.E; 5.9% use RunWay; 10.9% Midjourney; 10.2% use Bing, 11.3% use other AIs (figure3). However, in this study, a relevant question was also asked: if they check and analyze the content generated by AI, 41.4% considered doing individual critical reflection; 8.6% considered checking by peers or colleagues; 17.6% considered validating the results through the teacher; 14.5% considered checking through websites or online platforms and 15.2% considered checking through ChatGPT (figure4). In conclusion, the use of digital AI tools in co-creation processes at the “thinking vs. creating” stage in design, multimedia and audiovisual projects has proved to be very fruitful for students to develop their creative skills and competences.