AI Slop or AI-enhancement? Student perceptions of AI-generated media for an English for Academic Purposes course
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → Agentic RAG, agents and memory
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial intelligence (AI) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) tools now enable educators to transform course materials into diverse multimedia at scale. However, it remains unclear whether such AI-generated content functions as a pedagogical scaffold or AI slop: high volume, low quality material. This innovative practice paper reports on the development, implementation, and evaluation of teacher-prompted, AI-generated supplemental materials in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course at a Hong Kong Community College. Using primarily Google Notebook LM, the instructor generated videos, podcasts, infographics, and individualized feedback reports from course materials and student work for 106 English as a Foreign Language learners. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design comprising a survey, semi-structured interviews, and correlation analysis with academic scores was employed to examine students' preferences, perceptions, and learning outcomes. Findings are framed through the Technology Acceptance Model and Cognitive Load Theory. Students rated the materials highly for perceived usefulness and ease of use, and preferred assessment-linked content presented in visual and multimodal formats, particularly videos and infographics. Video preference correlated positively with academic performance; however, higher cognitive load was negatively associated with course grades, indicating that material complexity must be carefully calibrated. Notably, some lower-performing students independently adopted the materials as remedial scaffolds. The practice demonstrates that RAG tools enable scalable personalized feedback that would be less feasible through traditional methods. When aligned with student goals and cognitive principles, teacher-prompted AI generation can meaningfully enhance the EAP learning ecosystem rather than producing AI slop.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agentic RAG, agents and memory, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 0 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Apr 2026.
Builds on
0 of 18 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026An AI Teaching Assistant for Motion Picture Engineering
- 2026Generative AI Feedback, English Writing and Teacher Rubrics: A Multiple-Case Study of CyberScholar ↗
- 2025SlideItRight: Using AI to Find Relevant Slides and Provide Feedback for Open-Ended Questions
- 2026Large Language Models in Teaching and Learning: Reflections on Implementing an AI Chatbot in Higher Education ↗
- 2026SLATE: Are AI-Generated Slides Educationally Effective? A Benchmark for Language Teaching Quality and Learner Knowledge Acquisition
- 2024Comparing the Utility, Preference, and Performance of Course Material Search Functionality and Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Model (RAG-LLM) AI Chatbots in Information-Seeking Tasks
- 2025From Slides to Chatbots: Enhancing Large Language Models with University Course Materials
- 2024Exploring AI Text Generation, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Detection Technologies: a Comprehensive Overview