Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Motivation and Retrieval in Higher Education Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) presents novel approaches to enhance motivation, curriculum structure and development, and learning and retrieval processes for both learners and instructors. Though a focus for this emerging technology is academic misconduct, we sought to leverage GAI in curriculum structure to facilitate educational outcomes. For instructors, GAI offers new opportunities in course design and management while reducing time requirements to evaluate outcomes and personalizing learner feedback. These include innovative instructional designs such as flipped classrooms and gamification, enriching teaching methodologies with focused and interactive approaches, and team-based exercise development, among others. For learners, GAI offers unprecedented self-directed learning opportunities, improved cognitive engagement, and effective retrieval practices, leading to enhanced autonomy, motivation, and knowledge retention. Though empowering, this evolving landscape has integration challenges and ethical considerations, including accuracy, technological evolution, loss of learner's voice, and socio-economic disparities. Our experience demonstrates that the responsible application of GAI's in educational settings will revolutionize learning practices, making education more accessible and tailored - producing positive motivational outcomes for both learners and instructors. Thus, we argue that leveraging GAI in educational settings will improve outcomes with implications extending from primary through higher and continuing education paradigms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".