The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prototyping the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for adult learning content creation at scale
Open accessAbstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) and other forms of Generative AI permeate various aspects of our lives, their application for learning and education has provided opportunities and challenges. This paper presents an investigation into the use of LLMs in asynchronous course creation, particularly within the context of adult learning, training and upskilling. We developed a course prototype leveraging an LLM, implementing a robust human-in-the-loop process to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the generated content. Our research questions focus on the feasibility of LLMs to produce high-quality adult learning content with reduced human involvement. Initial findings indicate that taking this approach can indeed facilitate faster content creation without compromising on accuracy or clarity, marking a promising advancement in the field of Generative AI for education. Despite some limitations, the study underscores the potential of LLMs to transform the landscape of learning and education, necessitating further research and nuanced discussions about their strategic and ethical use in learning design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
LLMs have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in generating novel language artifacts such as course readings, code explanations, model solutions, feedback, and responses to help requests.
“This has been inspired by many other instances where LLMs have already demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in generating novel language artifacts. These include course readings [22], code explanations [23, 28, 29, 41], model solutions [9, 35, 42], feedback [34], or responses to help requests [18, 26, 46, 47].”
From A Comparative Study of AI-Generated (GPT-4) and Human-crafted MCQs in Programming Education (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Models
Liu, V., & Chilton, L. B. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.06977 · Cited by 635
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-9. doi:10.1007/s10956- 023-10039-y. · DOI · Paper page
- Moore, S., Nguyen, H. A., & Stamper, J. (2020). Evaluating crowdsourcing and topic modeling in generating knowledge components from explanations. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 21st International Conference, AIED 2020, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6-10, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 21 (pp. 398-410). Springer International Publishing.. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_32. · DOI
- Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Kollar, I., Dresel, M., ... & Fischer, F. (2023). Using natural language processing to support peer-feedback in the age of artificial intelligence: A cross-disciplinary framework and a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.13336. · DOI · Paper page
- Gabajiwala, E., Mehta, P., Singh, R., & Koshy, R. (2022, November). Quiz Maker: Automatic Quiz Generation from Text Using NLP. In Futuristic Trends in Networks and Computing Technologies: Select Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on FTNCT 2021 (pp. 523- 533). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-5037-7_37. · DOI · Paper page
- Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816833. · DOI
- Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152-159. doi:10.1002/acp.3482. · DOI
- Goodell, J., & Kolodner, J. (Eds.). (2022). Learning Engineering Toolkit: Evidence-Based Practices from the Learning Sciences, Instructional Design, and Beyond. Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781003276579. · DOI
- Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science education, 67(4), 489-508. doi:10.1002/sce.3730670406. · DOI
- Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119239086. · DOI
- Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd edition). ASCD.
- Leiker, D., Gyllen, A. R., Eldesouky, I., & Cukurova, M. (2023). Generative AI for learning: Investigating the potential of synthetic learning videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03784. · arXiv
- White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., ... & Schmidt, D. C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The promise and challenges of generative AI in education
Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Järvelä, S., Mavrikis, M., & Rienties, B. (2025) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2394886 · Cited by 543
Self-citationA Comparative Study of AI-Generated (GPT-4) and Human-crafted MCQs in Programming Education
Doughty, J., Wan, Z., Bompelli, A., Qayum, J., Wang, T., Zhang, J., Zheng, Y., Doyle, A., Sridhar, P., Agarwal, A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference · doi:10.1145/3636243.3636256 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Leiker, D., Finnigan, S., Gyllen, A. R., & Cukurova, M.
- Affiliations
- RCVS Knowledge (GB)
- KIC InnoEnergy (Netherlands) (NL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.01815
- OpenAlex
- W4379538601
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- EIT InnoEnergy
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › 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
- large language models, generative AI in education, adult learning, course design, human-in-the-loop, upskilling, training content, learning design, AI-generated content quality
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