It seems you can’t get through a day without seeing or reading something about artificial intelligence (AI), which tackles an ever-increasing variety of functions, from simple search engines to complex theoretical forecasts.
The opportunities – and risks – are especially important in the classroom, according to Dr. Shabnam Mehra, instructor of undergraduate studies in USF’s College of Public Health (COPH). She recently presented a new study, Not One Size Fits All: Comparing AI Tools for Curriculum Design and Lesson Planning, at the USF Artificial Intelligence + X Symposium on the Tampa campus.
“As an educator, I've seen the challenges and increasing pressure on faculty and instructional designers to create engaging and aligned course content,’’ she said. “AI tools seem to promise to speed up and generate high-quality educational materials. This prompted me to explore how AI can support the goals while streamlining curriculum planning and I wanted to understand which AI tools are best suited for specific tasks.’’
Mehra has extensive experience in AI, data science and business intelligence and led a number of projects in her previous role as director of Student Success Analytics in USF’s Office of Decision Support. Her latest efforts are helping the undergraduate teaching faculty in the creative use of AI, finding ways to make course curriculums more efficient through AI, and sharing lessons learned and best practices at conferences.
She recently worked with an instructional designer, Sonya Crider, M.A., from the college’s Office of Educational Technology and Assessment. They compared course curriculum redesign using three different AI platforms − ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini − and noticed differences in efficiency and content creation.
“This inspired me to explore the use of AI in curriculum design and lesson planning,’’ she said. “Also, with increasing availability of AI tools and rapid integration of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini in education there is talk − and concern − about the use of these tools in education. I feel there is no turning back.’’
In her presentation, Mehra compared the strengths and weaknesses of each tool and analyzed which is best suited for various tasks in different areas of curriculum and lesson planning. A key finding was that ChatGPT is best at aligning content with objectives and integrating textbook information. However, it was slow to operate.
Strengths:
- ChatGPT - Strong alignment between activities, assessments and objectives, detailed activity descriptions, effective textbook integration
- Gemini - Wider range of ideas and suggestions
- Copilot – Ability to create an accurate alignment map and entire course outline
Weaknesses:
- ChatGPT - Less flexibility in generating alternative ideas or approaches, could sometimes be too focused on a single solution; slow to operate
- Gemini - Less detailed activity descriptions, struggled with alignment in some cases
- Copilot – Limited by character limit, struggled with textbook integration, less specific
Overall, these platforms have several distinct benefits:
- Efficiency – AI can significantly speed up the process of curriculum design and lesson planning, allowing educators to focus on more creative and interactive aspects of teaching.
- Quality – AI tools can generate high-quality outlines and activities that are aligned with learning objectives and standards.
- Variety – AI can provide a wide range of ideas and approaches, which can be particularly useful for generating diverse and engaging lesson plans.
Shania Gonzalez, BS, CPH-provisional and Rhea Charles, MPH were also involved in Mehra's study. (Photo courtesy of Mehra)
However, AI also has a number of downsides. The tools can be addictive as educators become overly reliant on them, potentially leading to a lack of critical thinking and superficial lesson planning. AI can struggle with aligning content with learning objectives or integrating textbook information accurately, requiring a person to review and make adjustments.
“There’s the risk of students using AI to bypass learning, such as generating assignments without truly engaging with the material,’’ Mehra said. “It’s important to establish clear guidelines and ethical standards for the use of AI in education.’’
Another concern is plagiarism, where AI-generated content can unintentionally replace existing material. However, plagiarism detection tools can review AI outputs and align them with academic integrity standards, but “educators need to take extra caution with plagiarism as we are setting examples and expectations for the students,’’ she said.
Mehra’s work complements another USF study, Brave New World: Exploring undergraduate USF student preferences for AI programs, which addresses how the student use of AI programs is prompting higher education professionals to re-evaluate teaching methods. Another related study, presented at the Educause conference, was Is AI Write or Wrong: Student perspectives on using AI to complete writing assignments (https://www.usf.edu/health/public-health/news/2024/ai.aspx).
Mehra and Crider not only tested the capabilities of various large language models for curriculum development, but showcased the potential for meaningful collaboration among staff, faculty and students in research.
“It reflects how different roles in academia can collaborate to explore innovative approaches to education,’’ she said.
So, what does all this mean for the student, or even to people outside the classroom?
“AI-driven curriculum design affects not just educators but students and, by extension, the community,’’ Mehra said. “It ensures students receive a well-structured, adaptable and engaging learning experience. By using AI to streamline curriculum design and lesson planning, educators can create more personalized and effective learning experiences.
“This can lead to better educational outcomes, more motivated students and a more efficient use of time and resources. For the average person, this means a better-prepared workforce and a more dynamic education system that meets diverse learning needs.’’
Also involved in Mehra’s study were teaching assistants Shania Gonzalez, BS, CPH-provisional and Rhea Charles, MPH.