Can Generative AI Support Course Design, Constructive Alignment, and Assessment in French for Specific Purposes?
Backup copy. This page is kept by the LLCIS Research Laboratory as a backup of Confluence Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. The official version of record is published on the journal’s platform, hosted and indexed by IMIST-CNRST: https://journals.imist.ma/index.php/confluence/article/view/13079.
- Ibrahim Ben Khajjou ORCIDAbdelmalek Essaâdi University image/svg+xml
- Ibrahim Belmir ORCIDAbdelmalek Essaâdi University image/svg+xml
- Ahmed Ibrahimi ORCIDAbdelmalek Essaâdi University image/svg+xml
Abstract
This empirical study investigates whether locally executed artificial intelligence systems, augmented with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), can reliably support instructors in maintaining constructive alignment across course design and assessment in resource-constrained institutional settings. The research addresses two interconnected questions: (1) To what extent can a domain-specialized language model (HorizaEdu) running on open-source infrastructure (Ollama) with pedagogical ingest generate aligned course materials and assessments without cloud dependency or data loss? (2) Can non-technical educators use generative AI prototyping platforms (Google AI Studio) to design, implement, and deploy secure web-based examination systems? The study conducted a single-cohort empirical evaluation with 150 post-secondary learners in a Professional French (Français Professionnel) blended course targeting an engineering communication context. Using Porter’s Alignment Index, RAGAS automated evaluation, the System Usability Scale (SUS), and server-side infrastructure monitoring, we measured pedagogical alignment, algorithmic performance, technical stability, user experience, and legal compliance. Results show that the local RAG-augmented system achieved a mean alignment index of 0.88 (target: 0.80), with 92% Faithfulness and 96% Answer Relevance scores. The no-code web application maintained 100% uptime under full load and achieved a SUS score of 74.5 (Grade B / “Good”). The study shows that with careful pedagogical scaffolding, open-source AI infrastructure, and structured prompt engineering, individual instructors in modest institutional settings can operationalize constructive alignment as an automated design constraint while independently building secure assessment platforms. Limitations include single-cohort design, domain specificity, and unresolved mobile UX challenges. The work helps bridge the gap between AI capability and equitable teacher access to AI-augmented instructional design tools.
Keywords
Pedagogical CoherenceGenerative AI In EducationRetrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)Learning AnalyticsComputer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)Professional Communication
Works Cited (26)
- Anderson, Lorin W., and David R. Krathwohl, editors. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, 2001.
- Bangor, Aaron, et al. “Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale.” Journal of Usability Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 2009, pp. 114-23.
- Bates, A. W. Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed., Tony Bates Associates, 2019, https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/.
- Beck, Kent, et al. “Manifesto for Agile Software Development.” Agile Manifesto, 2001, agilemanifesto.org.
- Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 4th ed., Open University Press, 2011.
- Brooke, John. “SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale.” Usability Evaluation in Industry, edited by Patrick W. Jordan et al., Taylor and Francis, 1996, pp. 189-194, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411.
- Depover, Christian, et al. Les environnements d’apprentissage multimédia: Analyse et conception. L’Harmattan, 1998.
- Es, Shahul, et al. “RAGAs: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation.” Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024, pp. 150-158, https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-demo.16.
- Garrison, D. Randy. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667263.
- Garrison, D. Randy, and Terry Anderson. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Routledge, 2003, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203166093.
- Google. Google AI Studio, 2024, https://aistudio.google.com/.
- Kasneci, Enkelejda, et al. “ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education.” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, 2023, article 102274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
- Koehler, Matthew J., and Punya Mishra. “What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 9, no. 1, 2009, pp. 60-70, https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge/.
- Lewis, Patrick, et al. “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9459-9474, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Abstract.html.
- Mehrabian, Albert. Silent Messages. Wadsworth, 1971.
- Mollick, Ethan. Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. Portfolio, 2024.
- Ollama. Ollama: Run Large Language Models Locally. Version 0.1.32, 2024, https://ollama.com/.
- Porter, Andrew C. “Measuring the Content of Instruction: Uses in Research and Practice.” Educational Researcher, vol. 31, no. 7, 2002, pp. 3-14, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003.
- Prensky, Marc. Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Corwin Press, 2010.
- Russell, Stuart J., and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th ed., Pearson, 2021.
- Selwyn, Neil. Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Polity Press, 2019.
- Toohey, Susan. Designing Courses for Higher Education. SRHE and Open University Press, 1999.
- Wang, Feng, and Michael J. Hannafin. “Design-Based Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments.” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 4, 2005, pp. 5-23, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682.
- Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. 2nd ed., ASCD, 2005.
- Williamson, Ben. Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. SAGE Publications, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920.
- Zawacki-Richter, Olaf, et al. “Systematic Review of Research on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education: Where Are the Educators?” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, 2019, article 39, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.
