Why Singapore's AI Education Needs a Design Thinking Revolution
I've been watching Singapore's impressive rollout of AI education tools with both admiration and concern. After years of facilitating creative workshops and seeing firsthand how transformative thinking emerges, I can't help but feel we're missing something fundamental about how AI should transform learning.
Don't get me wrong—the S$1 billion investment and the five sophisticated AI tools are remarkable achievements. The Adaptive Learning System, the various feedback assistants, and the Authoring Copilot represent serious technological advancement. But when I look at these tools through a design lens, I see a pattern that worries me: we're using AI to optimize existing educational processes rather than reimagining what learning could become.
The Performance Trap
Here's what struck me about Singapore's approach: every single tool focuses on improving performance metrics—better test scores, faster grading, more efficient lesson planning. The Adaptive Learning System adjusts difficulty levels. The feedback assistants catch grammar mistakes and mathematical errors. The Authoring Copilot streamlines curriculum delivery.
But where's the tool that helps a student wonder "What if we designed cities differently?" or "How might we solve homelessness through design?" Where's the AI that sparks curiosity rather than just correcting answers?
The recent NTU investigation into AI cheating isn't surprising—it's inevitable when we position AI as a performance enhancer rather than a thinking partner. When students see AI tools as ways to get better grades rather than explore ideas, of course they'll use them to shortcut assignments.
Learning as a Design Journey
In creative workshops, I've seen something magical happen when we reframe problems. Instead of asking "How do we make this better?" we ask "How might we completely reimagine this?" That shift in perspective changes everything.
What if we applied this same thinking to education? What if, instead of viewing learning as a series of performance milestones, we saw it as a continuous design thinking journey?
Imagine an AI tool that doesn't just adapt difficulty levels but prompts students to question assumptions. Picture a system that responds to a math problem not with "correct" or "incorrect" but with "What patterns do you notice?" or "How might this connect to something in your daily life?"
This isn't about replacing human teachers—it's about creating space for the kind of deep, exploratory thinking that humans do best.
The Ideation Gap
Here's what really bothers me about our current approach: we're teaching students to consume AI-generated content rather than collaborate with AI to generate original ideas. The tools focus on assessment and delivery, not on fostering the creative confidence that students will need in an AI-saturated world.
In design thinking, we spend enormous energy on the ideation phase—that messy, wonderful space where crazy ideas collide and new possibilities emerge. Why aren't we building AI tools that excel in this space?
I envision AI that acts like the best design thinking facilitator: asking provocative questions, making unexpected connections, challenging assumptions, and encouraging wild ideas. Tools that help students develop their own unique perspectives rather than converging on "correct" answers.
A Different Kind of Intelligence
The students I work with don't need AI to make them better test-takers. They need AI to make them better thinkers. They need tools that help them:
Question deeply: Not just "What's the answer?" but "What's the real problem we're trying to solve?"
Connect creatively: Linking ideas across disciplines in ways that surprise and delight
Prototype rapidly: Testing ideas quickly and learning from failure
Empathize genuinely: Understanding human needs and motivations at a deeper level
These are the skills that will matter in a world where AI can handle most of the routine cognitive work.
The Singapore Opportunity
Singapore has all the ingredients to lead this shift. The infrastructure is there. The investment appetite is proven. The teachers are engaged. What we need now is the courage to move beyond optimization thinking toward transformation thinking.
Instead of asking "How can AI make our current education system more efficient?" we should be asking "How might AI help us create an entirely new kind of learning experience?"
This isn't a criticism of the current initiatives—they're important steps. But they're not enough. If we want to prepare students for a future where AI is ubiquitous, we need to teach them to be AI collaborators, not AI consumers.
The Real Test
The true measure of educational AI isn't whether students score higher on standardized tests. It's whether they leave school with the confidence and capability to tackle problems that don't have predetermined solutions.
It's whether they can look at the climate crisis, social inequality, or urban planning challenges and think "How might we...?" rather than "What's the right answer?"
That's the kind of intelligence our world needs. And that's the kind of AI education Singapore could pioneer if we're brave enough to think differently about what learning really means.
The question isn't whether AI will transform education—it already has. The question is whether we'll use it to create better test-takers or better thinkers. I know which future I'd rather design.
 | A guest post by
|