Debate-a-bot: GenAI in Architecture, Building and Planning

This case study details how GenAI was used to engage learners in an interactive, debate-based roleplay to explore Native Title and its broader developmental implications. Through simulated stakeholder perspectives, students practise analytical thinking and respectful dialogue while applying legal and socio-political frameworks in context.

Summary

In the Week 11 tutorial, a debate-based roleplay was piloted where GenAI (using Copilot, Aila, and ChatGPT) acted as a simulated Social Justice Commissioner, engaging over 200 undergraduate students in critical discussions about Native Title and its role in development for First Nations Australians. Students, taking on roles such as policy analysts and Indigenous advocates, debated key questions aligned with assessment tasks, focusing on capability theory, legal frameworks, and policy reform. The activity emphasized critical thinking, respectful dialogue, and real-world application, with positive student engagement and plans for future improvements. Clear instructions, ethical considerations, and GenAI acknowledgment guidelines were provided to support responsible and effective use of GenAI in learning and assessment.


Subject information

Subject

PROP10001 Economics and Cities

Year and Semester used

2025, Semester 2

Cohort

Undergraduate

Activity/assessment overview

Purpose

To engage learners in an interactive, debate-based roleplay that critically explores the concept of Native Title and its broader developmental implications.

This activity fosters deeper understanding through simulated stakeholder perspectives, encouraging analytical thinking, respectful dialogue, and contextual application of legal and socio-political frameworks.

Learning activity

Interactive Debate Simulation (Roleplay)

GenAI role

Simulated Social Justice Commissioner involved in the drafting of the Native Title Act 1993.

Student roles

Policy analysts, Indigenous advocates, development consultants.

Format

  • GenAI engages students in a live debate.
  • Students present critiques and proposals.
  • GenAI challenges arguments, prompts deeper analysis, and encourages evidence-based reasoning.
  • Students respond to counterarguments and refine their positions.

GenAI usage

GenAI tool(s) used

Aila, Copilot, ChatGPT (Copilot yielded the most effective responses).

How GenAI was integrated

GenAI was integrated as a simulated Social Justice Commissioner, engaging students in a live debate on Native Title as a tool for development. Using a tailored prompt, GenAI challenged student arguments, prompted policy solutions, and supported critical thinking aligned with Assessment 3.

Level of student engagement

Individual participation during tutorials.

Pedagogical approach

Teaching strategy

Formative assessment activity.

Type of activity

Classroom activity.

Scaffolding and support provided

Multiple brainstorming sessions to:

  • Clarify context and purpose
  • Test and refine GenAI prompts
  • Develop student instructions and implementation strategy
  • Identify evaluation methods.

Ethics

Students were given the option to opt out of the activity if they preferred not to use GenAI.

Outcomes and reflections

This pilot project was a valuable learning journey for all of us (the Subject Coordinator, tutors, and the TLI team) as we learned together, driven by the same passion and curiosity. It is always encouraging when academics are equally eager to explore and engage in trialling new ideas that align with sound pedagogical approaches.

Through multiple brainstorming and prompt-testing sessions, we experimented, failed, refined, and tried again but never gave up on the concept.

As we moved into the implementation and facilitation phase, the TLI team attended a few tutorials to observe student engagement. We appreciated how the teaching team clearly and confidently explained the purpose of the activity to students. Student engagement appeared positive, with participants thoughtfully considering how to acknowledge outputs with transparency.

We are awaiting overall tutors and student feedback.

Contributors

  • Jyoti Shukla, senior lecturer in property (Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning)
  • Timsy Gupta, learning designer
  • Rebecca Yang, learning designer
  • Kate Batten, student GenAI innovator