Analyzing Curricular Pattern Complexity Using AI to Improve On-Time Graduation Rates

Contribution: This paper presents a six-phase AI-assisted instructional design architecture based on the Curriculum as Code paradigm, integrating Generative AI with LaTeX and Python to automate the creation of reproducible, visually consistent, and technically precise materials for STEM education. Background: Creating customized instructional materials for active learning imposes a heavy workload on faculty. Standard presentation tools lack robust support for technical content, while current AI applications often hallucinate and fail to formalize the instructional authoring process, limiting their utility for rigorous academic design. Intended Outcomes: The framework aims to reduce preparation time while ensuring mathematical accuracy, adherence to institutional visual identity, and preservation of the instructor's tacit pedagogical knowledge through explicit rules. Application Design: The solution comprises a six-phase pipeline that replaces ad-hoc prompt engineering with a systematic workflow, utilizing text-based interfaces and code-driven generation (LaTeX/Beamer for slides, Python for figures), governed by pedagogical constraints, contextual calibrations, and automated review cycles. Findings: Validated over one year across 8 modules and 28 project contexts in a Project-Based Learning environment, the architecture significantly reduced instructor workload. Generated assets underwent independent peer review and were deployed by six different faculty members, confirming scalability beyond a single author. Based on over 600 voluntary student evaluations, materials achieved high quality ratings from 8.5 to 9.9/10. Results indicate high reproducibility, minimized hallucinations, and sustained pedagogical and visual fidelity, suggesting viability for broad STEM educational applications.

Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt. This is a curriculum-framework paper, grounded in a structured narrative review of labor-market and software-engineering evidence and illustrated through an exploratory pilot course: the review supports the framework, and the pilot illustrates it rather than serving as primary evidence. The central claim is that near-term change is task reallocation rather than full replacement: routine implementation is increasingly automated while verification, systems thinking, security, and the ability to supervise and orchestrate AI (keeping a human in the loop) gain value. We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder: a five-level progression (trigger, automation, workflow, AI agent, agent team) that classifies the operational autonomy of AI-augmented work and the human supervision it requires. We map the ladder to course-level updates, workload-aware assessment, and stackable workforce credentials, and illustrate it through a two-semester pilot of a team-based, no-code course enrolling computing and business students. We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement, and we are explicit about evidence limits: labor signals are confounded by non-AI forces, industry reports are directional, and the pilot is exploratory.

Large online courses generate thousands of student questions directed at conversational AI teaching assistants, yet these interaction logs remain largely untapped as diagnostic signals. We present a pipeline that maps student questions from a conversational AI teaching assistant to curriculum topics using a few-shot text classifier, grounded in a GPT-4-extracted prerequisite knowledge graph of course concepts. Evaluated on 1,340 question events from 164 students in a graduate-level AI course, our classifier achieves 80.0% accuracy across 43 labels (42 curriculum topics plus an "unknown" abstention class). Topic-level question volume correlates significantly with student self-reported difficulty from an independent mid-semester survey (rho = 0.491, p = 0.008, n = 28 topics), providing convergent evidence that the classified question stream reflects genuine topic difficulty. These results demonstrate that conversational AI interaction logs, mapped onto curriculum structure, carry actionable signals about topic-level knowledge gaps and provide instructors with a curriculum-grounded view of which topics warrant attention.