Date
Publisher
arXiv
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can produce educational content at scale, including interactive and narrative learning experiences, but technical generation alone is not sufficient: scenarios that are confusing, narratively inconsistent, or unengaging are unlikely to be useful in practice. This paper presents a pilot user-centred evaluation of AI-generated interactive fiction (IF) for educational use in higher education. Using a previously described domain-agnostic pipeline and a shared STEM content base, we generated a controlled pool of scenarios and asked participants (N = 22, STEM higher-education) to play one generated episode and rate it on narrative clarity, story-content coherence, engagement, and length acceptance. A free-text prompt captured open feedback. Narrative clarity and length acceptance were rated positively, engagement sat near the neutral mid-point of the scale, and story-content coherence was the weakest dimension by a clear margin. Qualitative feedback points to quiz integration as the bottleneck. Artificial in-fiction motivation for quiz prompts and abrupt setting changes were reported. Feedback also pointed to missing story-level consequences for wrong answers. From these observations, we derive concrete design implications that can inform larger follow-up studies, including later work on learning effectiveness.
Why it matters
Generative AI can produce interactive learning experiences at scale, but technical generation alone is not sufficient. Scenarios that are confusing, narratively inconsistent, or unengaging are unlikely to be useful in practice.
Key findings
- In higher education STEM with 22 participants, learners rated AI-generated stories positively for clarity and length, but coherence was the weakest dimension.
- Learners reported that quiz integration was a bottleneck, creating artificial in-story motivations for test questions and abrupt setting changes.
- Learners noted that the AI-generated stories lacked meaningful narrative consequences when they submitted wrong answers to quiz questions.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design

