Q-Module-Bot: A Generative AI-Based Question and Answer Bot for Module Teaching Support
Open accessAbstract
Contributions: In this article, a generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based Q&A system has been developed by integrating information retrieval and natural language processing techniques, using course materials as a knowledge base and facilitating real-time student interaction through a chat interface. Background: The rise of advanced AI exemplified by ChatGPT developed by OpenAI, has sparked interest in its application within higher education. AI has the potential to reshape education delivery through chatbots and related tools, improving remote learning and mitigating challenges, such as student isolation and educator administrative burdens. Yet, ChatGPT’s practical applications in education remain uncertain, potentially due to its novel and enigmatic nature. Additionally, current e-learning chatbot systems often suffer from development complexity and a lack of input from key stakeholders, leading to developer-focused solutions rather than user-centered ones. Intended Outcomes: In this manuscript, we introduce a practical implementation of AI in education by creating a system called Q-Module-Bot that is accessible for both technical and nontechnical educators to harness e-learning benefits and demystify generative pretraining transformer (GPT). Application Design: The proposed Q-Module-Bot system has utilized pretrained large language models (LLMs) to build a Q&A system that helps students with their queries and supports education delivery using content extracted from a virtual learning environment (VLE). Findings: The prototype and system evaluation confirm the effectiveness of a scalable cross-departmental tool featuring source attribution and real-time responses. While successful in encouraging wider acceptance of GPT use cases in higher education, refinements are needed for full integration into the VLE and expansion to other modules/courses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Usability barriers hinder adoption, with 50% of users finding Q-Module-Bot's interface non-intuitive, while Fermat's confusing spatial canvas frustrates students.
“Usability barriers further hinder adoption, with 50% of users finding Q-Module-Bot's interface non-intuitive (Allen et al., 2024), while Fermat's confusing spatial canvas frustrates students (Cummings et al., 2024).”
From Pedagogical Applications of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Field (2025) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2024
Technical issues, such as unreliable query handling and system glitches, affect tools like Q-Module-Bot and Fermat, while self-made RAG chatbots often generate inaccurate content.
“Technical issues, such as unreliable query handling and system glitches, affect tools like Q-Module-Bot (Allen et al., 2024) and Fermat (Cummings et al., 2024), while self-made RAG chatbots often generate inaccurate content (Guo et al., 2024).”
From Pedagogical Applications of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Field (2025) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2024
Cites
Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education
Qadir, J. (2023) · 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon54358.2023.10125121 · Cited by 707 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Education is one of many sectors that has adopted AI chatbots within institutions to support business operations and efficiency and ultimately improve student learning outcomes [6], [31].”
BackgroundChatbot for university related FAQs
Ranoliya, B. R., Raghuwanshi, N., & Singh, S. (2017) · 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) · doi:10.1109/icacci.2017.8126057 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Creation and Evaluation of a Pretertiary Artificial Intelligence (AI) Curriculum
Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., Chai, C.-S., King, I., Wong, S., & Yam, Y. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.2021.3085878 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pedagogical Applications of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Field
Qian, Y. (2025) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-025-01100-1 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
“The Q-Module-Bot’s reliance on local CSV storage limits its expansion (Allen et al., 2024), and highly customized RAG chatbots restrict broader applications (Guo et al., 2024).”
Influential
- Authors
- Allen, M., Naeem, U., & Gill, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Education
- Published
- 2024-10
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 793-802
- ISSN
- 0018-9359 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9638
- OpenAlex
- W4401387983
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 12.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- qmro.qmul.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Education (publishedVersion)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI in education, chatbots, large language models, GPT, information retrieval, virtual learning environments, online learning, student interaction, source attribution, higher education teaching support
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review