CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 75Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Instructors as Innovators: A future-focused approach to new AI learning opportunities, with prompts

Open access
Mollick, Ethan, Mollick, Lilach·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2407.05181arXiv 2407.05181
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper explores how instructors can leverage generative AI to create personalized learning experiences for students that transform teaching and learning. We present a range of AI-based exercises that enable novel forms of practice and application including simulations, mentoring, coaching, and co-creation. For each type of exercise, we provide prompts that instructors can customize, along with guidance on classroom implementation, assessment, and risks to consider. We also provide blueprints, prompts that help instructors create their own original prompts. Instructors can leverage their content and pedagogical expertise to design these experiences, putting them in the role of builders and innovators. We argue that this instructor-driven approach has the potential to democratize the development of educational technology by enabling individual instructors to create AI exercises and tools tailored to their students' needs. While the exercises in this paper are a starting point, not a definitive solutions, they demonstrate AI's potential to expand what is possible in teaching and learning.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.05181

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This approach is in keeping with recent work positioning prompt engineering and pedagogical AI design as central academic competences for the GenAI era.

    “This is an approach that is in keeping with recent work positioning prompt engineering and pedagogical AI design as central academic competences for the GenAI era (Chiu, 2024; Mollick & Mollick, 2024).”

    From Effects of Partial vs. Full Cognitive Offloading with Generative AI on Learning Retention (2026) · cites this paper as Mollick & Mollick, 2024

    The Introduction and 'On ‘Programming’ AI Tools' section describe instructors using pedagogical expertise to design AI exercises and create and test prompts. That supports the emphasis on prompt creation and pedagogical AI design, but the paper frames these as instructor-led teaching practices, not as central academic competences generally. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 110 (1), 23-35.
  2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of schoolbased writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Review of educational research , 74 (1), 29-58.
  3. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜 . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623).
  4. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence , 19 (3-4), 363-392.
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.
  6. Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve. Long range planning , 38 (3), 299-319.
  7. Chi, M. T. (2018). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 251-282). Routledge.
  8. Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive science , 32 (2), 301-341.
  9. Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive science , 25 (4), 471-533.
  10. Choi, J. H., Garrod, O., Atherton, P., Joyce-Gibbons, A., Mason-Sesay, M., & Björkegren, D. (2023). Are LLMs Useful in the Poorest Schools? theTeacherAI in Sierra Leone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02982 . · arXiv
  11. Coe, R., Rauch, C. J., Kime, S., & Singleton, D. (2020). Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review. Evidence Based Education.
  12. Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jørgensen, A. M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research , 87 (2), 243282.
  13. Edery, D., & Mollick, E. (2008). Changing the game: how video games are transforming the future of business. Ft Press.
  14. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 38 (4), 281-288.
  15. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 717-741.
  16. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspectivetaking and negotiator focus. Journal of personality and social psychology , 81 (4), 657.
  17. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition , 10 (6), 597-602.
  18. Henkel, O., Horne-Robinson, H., Kozhakhmetova, N., & Lee, A. (2024). Effective and Scalable Math Support: Evidence on the Impact of an AI-Tutor on Math Achievement in Ghana. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09809 . · arXiv
  19. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive psychology , 25 (4), 524-575.
  20. Kirschner, P., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
  21. Kumar, H., Rothschild, D. M., Goldstein, D. G., & Hofman, J. M. (2023). Math Education with Large Language Models: Peril or Promise?. Available at SSRN 4641653 .
  22. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in cognitive sciences , 10 (10), 464-470.
  23. McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction , 7 (3), 197-244.
  24. Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students, with prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10052 . · arXiv
  25. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledgetelling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of educational research , 77 (4), 534-574.
  26. Seligman, M. E., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on psychological science , 8 (2), 119-141.
  27. Willingham, D. T. (2002). Ask the cognitive scientist inflexible knowledge: The first step to expertise. American educator , 26 (4), 31-33.
  28. Witherby, A. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2022). The rich-get-richer effect: Prior knowledge predicts new learning of domain-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 48 (4), 483.
  29. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational psychologist , 46 (4), 197-221.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mollick, E., & Mollick, L.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Mollick, Ethan
ORCID
Mollick, Ethan
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2407.05181
arXiv
2407.05181
OpenAlex
W4395015981
Cited by
75
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
generative AI in education, personalized learning, AI prompts, AI simulation, coaching and mentoring, co-creation, classroom implementation, assessment, risks of AI in education

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