LECTURE-GROUNDED CHATGPT-4 TUTOR: ENHANCING ADULT LEARNER ENGAGEMENT IN DISTANCE LEARNING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/ictel.2025.324342Keywords:
AI-Powered Learning Tutor, Chatgpt-4, Lecture-Grounded AI, Distance University EducationAbstract
Adult learners in remote university programs often struggle with engagement and satisfaction due to limited real-time interaction and support. This presentation introduces an AI-powered learning tutor that leverages ChatGPT-4 in a context-restricted manner, operating strictly within the instructor’s lecture materials and spoken content. By grounding the AI’s knowledge solely in the course textbooks, slides, transcripts, and other instructor-provided materials, the system delivers domain-specific support that is aligned with the curriculum and instructor’s intent. This controlled knowledge scope is a key innovation: it mitigates the usual pitfalls of generative AI (such as misinformation or irrelevant “hallucinations”) by ensuring answers remain faithful to the course content. The AI tutor functions as a virtual teaching assistant, available 24/7 to answer questions and engage in dialogue about the lecture topics. Adult learners can thus seek help at any time without fear of judgment, asking questions they might hesitate to pose to a human instructor. This on-demand, non-judgmental support has been observed to boost learner confidence and promote deeper exploration of course material. Early classroom deployments of the tutor have yielded increased student engagement and satisfaction: the AI’s ability to hold extended conversations within the bounds of the courseware has enhanced learners’ cognitive engagement and the sense of an instructor presence in remote classes. Learners reported feeling more supported and motivated, and instructors noted students coming to class better prepared. We also discuss the pedagogical implications of constraining an AI tutor’s knowledge scope. This approach empowers educators to maintain content control and uphold academic standards while still harnessing AI’s scalability and responsiveness. Instructors can focus on higher-order mentoring as routine FAQs are handled by the AI, illustrating a new model of human–AI collaboration in education. Our findings highlight that a lecture-grounded ChatGPT-4 tutor can significantly enhance engagement and satisfaction among adult learners in remote settings, offering a promising pathway to more interactive, inclusive, and effective online learning experiences.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:
1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chen, X., Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2023). ChatGPT in education: A systematic review of literature and future research directions. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 7453–7476. doi:
1007/s10639-023-11674-5
Coursmos. (2025). Online learning statistics 2025 — Facts, growth & trends. Retrieved from https://www.coursmos.com/online-learning-statistics/
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Dron, J. (2018). Smart learning environments: Architecture, technologies and engineering. London: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33. doi:
1177/074171369704800103
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). London: Routledge.
Korea Education and Research Information Service. (2023). 2023 White paper on ICT in education Korea. Daegu: Korea Education and Research Information Service.
Korean Educational Development Institute. (2024). Korean lifelong learning survey 2024. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
Kuhn, C. (2023). Empowering students with AI tutors: The case for grounded generative feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1112–1128. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13344
Létourneau, S. M., Willms, J. D., & Corbett, A. (2025). A systematic review of AI-driven intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) in K-12 education. npj Science of Learning, 10, 12. doi:
1038/s41539-025-00320-7
Lim, C. P., & Wang, T. (2024). Designing human–AI collaboration for online adult education: Towards dialogic pedagogy. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100158. doi:
1016/j.caeai.2023.100158
Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661-679. doi:
2307/1980599
National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2022). Socially situated artificial intelligence enables learning from human interaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(39), e2115730119. doi:
1073/pnas.2115730119
Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Smart Learning Environments Journal. (2024). Using an adaptive learning tool to improve student performance and satisfaction in online and face-to-face education for a more personalized approach. Smart Learning Environments, 11, 8. doi:
1186/s40561-024-00292-y
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Yang, S., Chen, Y., & Wei, J. (2025). Self-determination theory and the influence of social support, self-regulated learning, and flow experience on student learning engagement in self-directed e-learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1545980. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1545980
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), 39. doi:
1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhou, L., & Schofield, D. (2024). A three-level framework for generative AI in education: Individual, community, and systemic perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(2), 455-472. doi:
1007/s11423-024-10329-1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Howard Kim, Jaehyun Yoon, Seung Man Lee, Sung Min Cho, Yeon Ju Kim, Geontae Noh, Jongwon Lee
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of Published Articles
Author(s) retain the article copyright and publishing rights without any restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
