A Literature Review on Aligning Curricula with ChatGPT
Abstract
The primary function of ChatGPT is to serve as a cognitive artifact that contributes to solving human cognitive tasks. The purpose of this study is to review how generative AI can be aligned with curricula, offering guidance for curriculum designers and practitioners. The study employed the semi-systematic literature review method. The inclusion criteria of the study include research addressing the purpose, content, learning experience, and assessment dimensions of curricula. Aligning curricula with GenAI involves not only encouraging its use but also establishing rules and, when necessary, implementing restrictions. While interaction with GenAI can be intentionally integrated into certain learning outcomes, it may not be required for others. Curriculum designers and teachers, just as they align courses and content, should treat GenAI as a distinct area of focus and ensure proper alignment. In this context, it is recommended that decisions be made on whether GenAI use should be incorporated, restricted, or prohibited depending on the targeted cognitive skills, and that students utilize GenAI as a preparatory tool for idea generation during the process of re-constructing course content. Another suggestion is that the distinction between conversational and learning purposes be clearly established when GenAI is employed as a tool for interaction and learning, and that supervised applications, along with open-use procedures, be developed for assessment and evaluation practices.
Keywords
GenAI, ChatGPT, Curriculum alignment, Learning outcomes, Content
Supporting Institution
Authors declare that this study was not funded by any organization.
References
- Akbaş, O. (2025). Rethinking Teacher Education in the ChatGPT Era through a Currere Perspective. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(1), 164-171.
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc..
- Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 255-260.
- Aylsworth, T., & Castro, C. (2024). Should I use ChatGPT to write my papers?. Philosophy & Technology, 37(4), 117.
- Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, O., & Mariman, R. (2024). Generative AI can harm learning. The Wharton School Research Paper.
- Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32(3), 347-364.
- Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 15403-15439.
- Bliszczyk, A. (2023) AI Writing tools like ChatGPT are the future of learning & no, it’s not cheating. Vice. Retrieved 19 08 2025, from https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgyjm4/ai-writing-tools-like-chatgpt-are-the-future-of-learning-and-no-its-not-cheating.
- Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942.
- Cardon, P., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J. (2023). The challenges and opportunities of AI-assisted writing: Developing AI literacy for the AI age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 257-295.
