Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2306.17459

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

Pragnya Sridhar·Aidan Doyle·Arav Agarwal·Christopher Bogart·Jaromir Savelka·Majd Sakr
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pragnya Sridhar, Aidan Doyle, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Jaromir Savelka, Majd Sakr. 2023-06-30. Harnessing LLMs in Curricular Design: Using GPT-4 to Support Authoring of Learning Objectives. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17459

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗