Submitted:
01 May 2025
Posted:
02 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Design and Approach
2.2. Data Collection Methods
- Learner performance data: Past data on student grades, learning paths, completion rates, and assessment results were taken from the school’s learning management systems (LMS). These datasets helped train AI models to see learning patterns and forecast student success.
- Industry trend analysis: Information on industry skill demands emerging technologies and workforce requirements was sourced from government labour reports industry white papers and job market databases. All this information has been put into AI models to make sure curriculum design matches the changing needs of the labour market.
- Survey and interview data: The data was obtained through surveys and semi-structured interviews of curriculum designers, faculty members, and industry experts to gather qualitative opinions on the effectiveness, challenges, and ethical considerations of AI in curriculum design.
2.3. AI-Driven Modeling and Predictive Analytics
- Machine learning algorithms: The Supervised learning models consist of decision trees, random forests, and support vector machines (SVM), applied to the student performance data in predicting learning outcomes and identifying areas where students might need personalized learning interventions.
- Natural language processing (NLP): Textual data from course evaluations, student feedback, and academic reports was subjected to analysis by NLP models for extracting insights related to course effectiveness and learner satisfaction.
- Collaborative filtering and recommendation engines: AI-based recommendation engines initiated the suggestion of personalized learning paths along with resources related to independent student needs. These models used content-based and collaborative filtering strategies for the refinement of course recommendations.
2.4. Statistical Analysis and Validation
- Descriptive statistics; the mean, median, standard deviation, and interquartile ranges were used to summarize the performance of AI models in predicting student success and course relevance.
- Regression analysis Multiple regression models were applied to examine the relationship between AI-generated recommendations and student learning outcomes. This analysis helped determine the predictive power of AI models in enhancing academic performance.
- ANOVA: Differences in learning outcomes and curriculum effectiveness were compared across the AI-driven and traditionally designed curricula using an ANOVA test.
- ROC analysis: The accuracy of the AI models in predicting at-risk students and in identifying areas where improvement to the curriculum is required was assessed using ROC curves.
2.5. Evaluation of AI-Driven Curriculum Outcomes
2.6. Curriculum Refinement and Continuous Improvement
2.7. Ethical Considerations and Data Privacy
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Advancing Curriculum Design Through Artificial Intelligence
4.2. Enhancing Student Performance and Retention
4.3. Personalizing Learning Pathways with AI
4.4. Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Industry
4.5. Improving Curriculum Evaluation and Refinement
4.6. Identifying and Supporting at-Risk Students
4.7. Ethical Considerations and Data Privacy
4.8. Challenges and limitations of AI in Curriculum Design
5. Conclusions
References
- Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431-440. [CrossRef]
- Budhai, S. S., & Skipwith, K. A. (2021). Best practices in engaging online learners through active and experiential learning strategies. Routledge.
- Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia computer science, 136, 16-24. [CrossRef]
- Chaudhri, V. K., Gunning, D., Lane, H. C., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Intelligent learning technologies: Applications of artificial intelligence to contemporary and emerging educational challenges. AI Magazine, 34(3), 10-12. [CrossRef]
- Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278.
- Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of science education and technology, 32(3), 444-452. [CrossRef]
- Escotet, M. Á. (2024). The optimistic future of Artificial Intelligence in higher education. Prospects, 54(3), 531-540. [CrossRef]
- Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. [CrossRef]
- Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. [CrossRef]
- Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capatina, A., Chakraborty, A., ... & Wong, L. W. (2025). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 65(1), 76-107. [CrossRef]
- Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100020. [CrossRef]
- Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & mass communication educator, 78(1), 84-93. [CrossRef]
- Popenici, S. A., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 12(1), 22. [CrossRef]
- Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International journal of artificial intelligence in education, 26, 582-599. [CrossRef]
- Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2013). Data mining in education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery, 3(1), 12-27.
- Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J. N., Reed, D., McCarty, C., ... & Thomas, A. (2023). Developing a model for AI Across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100127. [CrossRef]
- Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart learning environments, 10(1), 15. [CrossRef]
- Wang, N. (2022, January). Application of artificial intelligence and virtual reality technology in the construction of university physical education. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Electronic Communication and Artificial Intelligence (IWECAI) (pp. 343-346). IEEE.
- Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International journal of educational technology in higher education, 16(1), 1-27.
- Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., ... & Li, Y. (2021). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021(1), 8812542. [CrossRef]
- Жангужинoва, М. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in education: A review of the creative process of learning students on art educational programs. Central Asian Journal of Art Studies, 9(2), 289-307.

| Metric | AI-enhanced curriculum | Traditional curriculum | Mean Different | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course Completion Rate (%) | 89.72 ± 4.18 | 74.51 ± 6.42 | 15.21 | <0.001** |
| Average Grade (%) | 82.65 ± 5.32 | 75.38 ± 6.81 | 7.27 | 0.003* |
| Retention Rate (%) | 91.44 ± 3.91 | 78.12 ± 5.64 | 13.32 | <0.001** |
| Dropout Rate (%) | 4.98 ± 1.11 | 12.35 ± 2.34 | -7.37 | <0.001** |
| Student Satisfaction Score | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 3.8 ± 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.001** |
| Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | β Coefficient | Standard Error | T-value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI-Enhanced Curriculum Usage | Course Completion Rate | 0.72 | 0.05 | 14.35 | <0.001** |
| AI-Powered Recommendations | Student Retention Rate | 0.68 | 0.04 | 12.98 | <0.001** |
| Personalized Learning Path | Learning Outcome Score | 0.65 | 0.06 | 10.75 | <0.001** |
| Adaptive Learning Models | Dropout Rate Reduction | -0.53 | 0.07 | -7.56 | 0.002* |
| Metric | Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F-value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course Completion Rate (%) | Between Groups | 1458.67 | 1458.67 | 23.41 | <0.001** |
| Average grade (%) | Between Groups | 887.12 | 887.12 | 19.25 | 0.001** |
| Retention Grade (%) | Between Groups | 1024.89 | 1024.89 | 21.37 | <0.001** |
| Dropout Rate (%) | Between Groups | 298.54 | 298.54 | 15.72 | 0.002* |
| Student Satisfaction Score | Between Groups | 62.45 | 62.45 | 17.92 | <0.001** |
| Sentiment Category | AI-enhanced Curriculum (%) | Traditional Curriculum (%) | Mean Different (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 78.42 | 64.28 | 16.28 | <0.001** |
| Neutral | 15.27 | 23.51 | -8.24 | 0.005* |
| Negative | 6.31 | 14.35 | -8.04 | 0.001** |
| Constructive Feedback | 18.74 | 25.98 | -7.24 | 0.008* |
| Model Type | AUC Score | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Tree | 0.87 | 85.4 | 82.6 | 84.0 | <0.001** |
| Randon Forest | 0.91 | 88.2 | 85.7 | 86.9 | <0.001** |
| Support Vector Machine (SVM) | 0.89 | 86.5 | 84.1 | 85.3 | <0.001** |
| Neural Network | 0.93 | 89.1 | 87.2 | 88.5 | <0.001** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).