Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Harnessing LLMs in Curricular Design: Using GPT-4 to Support Authoring of Learning Objectives

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.17459 v1 pith:LW6P24Z2 submitted 2023-06-30 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords courseauthoringcurriculardesigngeneratedgpt-4high-qualityintended
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We evaluated the capability of a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT-4) to automatically generate high-quality learning objectives (LOs) in the context of a practically oriented university course on Artificial Intelligence. Discussions of opportunities (e.g., content generation, explanation) and risks (e.g., cheating) of this emerging technology in education have intensified, but to date there has not been a study of the models' capabilities in supporting the course design and authoring of LOs. LOs articulate the knowledge and skills learners are intended to acquire by engaging with a course. To be effective, LOs must focus on what students are intended to achieve, focus on specific cognitive processes, and be measurable. Thus, authoring high-quality LOs is a challenging and time consuming (i.e., expensive) effort. We evaluated 127 LOs that were automatically generated based on a carefully crafted prompt (detailed guidelines on high-quality LOs authoring) submitted to GPT-4 for conceptual modules and projects of an AI Practitioner course. We analyzed the generated LOs if they follow certain best practices such as beginning with action verbs from Bloom's taxonomy in regards to the level of sophistication intended. Our analysis showed that the generated LOs are sensible, properly expressed (e.g., starting with an action verb), and that they largely operate at the appropriate level of Bloom's taxonomy, respecting the different nature of the conceptual modules (lower levels) and projects (higher levels). Our results can be leveraged by instructors and curricular designers wishing to take advantage of the state-of-the-art generative models to support their curricular and course design efforts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI Research, Teaching Practices, and Tools

    cs.CY 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Computing educators are adopting GenAI faster than they are formalizing policies, and both educators and developers see code reading, evaluation, and problem decomposition as rising in importance over syntax recall.

  2. A Benchmark for Math Misconceptions: Bridging Gaps in Middle School Algebra with AI-Supported Instruction

    cs.HC 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new benchmark of 55 algebra misconceptions and 220 examples shows GPT-4-turbo diagnoses around 53% of misconceptions overall, 75% when topic-constrained, and 83.9% when educator feedback is included.

  3. Next-Gen Education: Enhancing AI for Microlearning

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An AI pipeline can convert lecture videos into microlearning materials, and student self-reports in two CS courses were mostly positive, but the study lacks a control group or objective outcome measures.

Pith tools