The Impact of Generative AI on Syllabus Design and Learning

Abstract

This research examines the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the perception of educational content quality, specifically by comparing AI-generated and human-generated course syllabi in marketing education. Results from four studies indicate a general preference for AI-generated syllabi, attributed to their greater perceived objectivity. This preference is more pronounced in conventional courses but diminishes in unconventional ones, suggesting that the unique aspects of these courses may reduce the advantages of generative AI. In addition, disclosing the AI authorship of syllabi significantly affects their perceived quality negatively, underscoring the impact of transparency on the acceptance of AI-generated educational materials. These findings highlight the potential of generative AI in educational content creation and its limitations in certain contexts. They offer valuable insights for enhancing educational practices and shaping policy decisions to enrich student experiences in the era of AI integration.

Keywords

generative AI AI integration marketing education course syllabus student perceptions educational practices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allied Market Research. (2023). Generative AI market by component, technology, end user, and region: Global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2023–2032. Allied Market Research. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/generative-ai-market-A47396

Al-Zahrani

A. M.

(2023). The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(5), 1029–1043.

Atlas

(2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI. University of Rhode Island. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=cba_facpubs

Baidoo-Anu

Ansah

L. O.

(2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62.

Chintalapati

Pandey

S. K.

(2022). Artificial intelligence in marketing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 64(1), 38–68.

Clerwall

(2014). Enter the robot journalist. The Future of Journalism: In an Age of Digital Media and Economic Uncertainty, 8(5), 519–531.

Elbanna

Armstrong

(2024). Exploring the integration of ChatGPT in education: Adapting for the future. Management & Sustainability: An Arab Review, 3(1), 16–29.

Feshbach

N. D.

Feshbach

(2009). Empathy and education. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, 85(98), 3–29.

Graefe

Haim

Haarmann

Brosius

H. B.

(2018). Readers’ perception of computer-generated news: Credibility, expertise, and readability. Journalism, 19(5), 595–610.

10.

Grewal

Guha

Beccacece Satornino

Becker

(2024). The future of marketing and marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 47(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753241269838

11.

Guha

Grewal

Atlas

(2024). Generative AI and marketing education: What the future holds. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(1), 6–17.

12.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40.

13.

Henestrosa

A. L.

Greving

Kimmerle

(2023). Automated journalism: The effects of AI authorship and evaluative information on the perception of a science journalism article. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107445.

14.

Hofeditz

Mirbabaie

Holstein

Stieglitz

(2021, June). Do you trust an AI-journalist? A credibility analysis of news content with AI-authorship [Conference session]. In. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Marrakesh, Morocco.

15.

(2023, February 1). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base—Analyst note. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/

16.

Hughes

R. T.

Zhu

Bednarz

(2021). Generative adversarial networks–enabled human–artificial intelligence collaborative applications for creative and design industries: A systematic review of current approaches and trends. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 604234.

17.

Jarek

Mazurek

(2019). Marketing and artificial intelligence. Central European Business Review, 8(2), 46–55.

18.

Kadaruddin

(2023). Empowering education through generative AI: Innovative instructional strategies for tomorrow’s learners. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 4(2), 618–625.

19.

Kilag

O. K.

Marquita

Laurente

(2023). Teacher-led curriculum development: Fostering innovation in education. Excellencia: International Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Education (2994–9521), 1(4), 223–237.

20.

Kumar

Rajan

Garg

(2024). Transformative marketing education: Drivers, outcomes, and research agenda. Journal of Marketing Education, 47(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753241266170

21.

Ngiam

K. Y.

Khor

(2019). Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery. The Lancet Oncology, 20(5), 262–273.

22.

Nurutdinova

A. R.

Perchatkina

V. G.

Zinatullina

L. M.

Zubkova

G. I.

Galeeva

F. T.

(2016). Innovative teaching practice: Traditional and alternative methods (challenges and implications). International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(10), 3807–3819.

23.

O’Donoghue

Singh

Green

(2004). A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of IT based education and the implication upon students. Digital Education Review, 9, 63–76.

24.

O’Grady

(2023). Spend on generative AI will grow 36% annually to 2030. Forrester. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/spend-on-generative-ai-will-grow-36-annually-to-2030/

25.

Peres

Schreier

Schweidel

Sorescu

(2023). On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artificial intelligence may Affect research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 269–275.

26.

Ryan

Tilbury

(2013). Flexible pedagogies: New pedagogical ideas. Higher Education Academy.

27.

Schroeder

K. T.

Hubertz

Van Campenhout

Johnson

B. G.

(2022). Teaching and learning with AI-generated courseware: Lessons from the classroom. Online Learning, 26(3), 73–87.

28.

Schwerdt

Wuppermann

A. C.

(2011). Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within-student between-subject approach. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 365–379.

29.

Shah

Murphy

McIntosh

(Eds.). (2017). Something to believe in: Creating trust and hope in organisations: Stories of transparency, accountability and governance. Routledge.

30.

Stokel-Walker

Van Noorden

(2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214–216.

31.

Sundar

S. S.

(2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility (pp. 73–100). MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.

32.

Sundar

S. S.

Kim

(2019, May). Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–9). Association for Computing Machinery.

33.

Wheeler

L. B.

Palmer

Aneece

(2019). Students’ perceptions of course syllabi: The role of syllabi in motivating students. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(3), 7.

34.

Wong

W. H.

Chapman

(2023). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher Education, 85(5), 957–978.

35.

Yan

Zhang

Liu

Zhou

Zhang

Yan

(2022). Toward intelligent design: An AI-based fashion designer using generative adversarial networks aided by sketch and rendering generators. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 25, 2323–2338.

36.

Zhai

(2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. SSRN Electronic Journal.

37.

Zhou

Abhishek

Derdenger

Kim

Srinivasan

(2024). Bias in generative AI. arXiv.

38.

Zulić

(2019). How AI can change/improve/influence music composition, performance and education: Three case studies. INSAM Journal of Contemporary Music, Art and Technology, 1(2), 100–114.