The Hidden Cost of AI-Generated Content and Open Educational Resources

Structure Matters More Than Ever in the Digital Learning Age

Students can now access limitless content with a single tap. But in this digital abundance, it's not information we lack… it's coherence.

Our educational landscape overflows with digital resources, interactive modules, and open-access materials and now AI generated content, but learners increasingly struggle to construct meaningful understanding from these fragmented pieces.[1] The true educational value lies not in content abundance but in the invisible architecture that transforms isolated facts into coherent understanding. This emphasis on structure isn't advocating for traditional formats over innovative ones. It's highlighting a fundamental principle of effective learning design that applies equally across all media, whether digital, interactive, or conventional.

Think of it like assembling furniture: having all the IKEA parts scattered across your floor doesn't mean you'll end up with a functional bookcase. What makes the difference is the structured instructions that transform those individual components into something cohesive and useful. Similarly, having access to all the information in the world doesn't guarantee understanding… it's the structure that connects those facts that creates meaning.

How Our Minds Crave Order

Our brains are natural pattern-seekers, not fact-collectors. When we encounter new information, we don't simply store isolated pieces of data… we instinctively search for connections, relationships, and organizing principles that help us make sense of what we're learning.

This fundamental aspect of human cognition explains why structure matters so profoundly. When educational materials present concepts in carefully sequenced progression, our minds recognize the logical relationships between ideas, allowing us to build stronger mental frameworks. We grasp fundamentals before tackling complexity, each concept serving as a cognitive steppingstone to the next. Without this thoughtful sequencing, learners must expend precious mental energy figuring out not just what to learn, but how pieces fit together.

Even seemingly minor structural elements like consistent terminology and representational systems dramatically impact understanding. When learners must constantly reconcile different symbolic languages or inconsistent vocabulary across resources, they divert cognitive resources away from deeper comprehension. It's like trying to read a novel where the language changes every few paragraphs; it’s technically possible, but unnecessarily taxing.

This cognitive reality explains why well-structured learning experiences consistently outperform content-focused approaches. Structure doesn't just organize information—it aligns with how our minds naturally process, connect, and retain knowledge. [2,3,4]

History's Hidden Advantage: Structure Over Content

The most transformative educational innovations throughout history share a surprising secret, their power came not from introducing new information, but from reimagining how knowledge is structured.

Consider Euclid's Elements, perhaps the most influential mathematics text ever written. Its brilliance wasn't in discovering new geometric truths (most of its content was already known). Rather, Euclid's genius lay in organizing these scattered insights into a coherent axiomatic system where each concept built logically upon previous ones. This structured approach didn't just compile knowledge… it transformed how people thought about mathematics for more than two millennia.

Similarly, Newton's Principia revolutionized science not merely through its content, but through its methodical structure of principles, theorems, and proofs that modeled systematic reasoning. Newton provided more than information; he offered a framework for scientific thinking that reshaped how generations approached the natural world.

This pattern continues in modern education. When the College Board reimagined AP frameworks around disciplinary practices rather than content checklists (2012-2019), the impact rippled through American classrooms. Teachers didn't simply update their content, they fundamentally reorganized how subjects were taught, emphasizing skills and connections over isolated facts.

These examples reveal an important truth: structural innovations typically precede and enable content innovations. The way knowledge is organized, not just what knowledge is included, determines its lasting educational impact. Throughout history, those who mastered the architecture of understanding, rather than merely accumulating information, have created the most enduring educational legacies. [5,6,8,9]

What Great Learning Design Gets Right

Exceptional learning design operates on multiple levels simultaneously, like a masterfully composed symphony where different instruments play distinct but harmonious parts. What appears on the surface as simply "good organization" involves sophisticated structural elements working together to guide the learner's journey. These elements, often invisible to casual observation, are the hallmarks of truly effective educational design.

First, great learning materials begin with careful cognitive mapping to deliberately identify core concepts and the relationships between them. This invisible architecture anticipates common misconceptions and creates clear pathways between interdependent ideas, much like a well-designed city layout makes navigation intuitive even for first-time visitors.

The best designs also maintain representational consistency, using visual elements, symbols, and language that form a coherent system rather than a patchwork of conflicting conventions. When a mathematical symbol or scientific term means the same thing throughout a learning experience, cognitive energy focuses on understanding concepts rather than decoding inconsistent signposts.

This consistency in representation works hand-in-hand with another critical design element: narrative coherence. Even without traditional storytelling techniques, effective learning design creates a sense that each idea follows naturally from previous ones and leads purposefully to what comes next. Just as consistent symbols provide a reliable language for expressing concepts, coherent narrative structure provides a reliable path through those concepts. This logical flow gives learners the context needed to integrate new information with what they already know, creating an experience that feels purposeful rather than arbitrary.

Perhaps most importantly, well-structured materials carefully calibrate progressive complexity, introducing challenges that stretch learners without overwhelming them. This delicate balance keeps learners in their optimal growth zone (what Vygotsky called the "zone of proximal development") where they're challenged enough to remain engaged but supported enough to avoid frustration.

Finally, exceptional design incorporates metacognitive scaffolding that includes strategic questions, reflection prompts, and summary opportunities that help learners become conscious of their own understanding. These elements don't just transmit information; they teach learners how to organize knowledge in their own minds.

These structural elements, working in concert, create learning experiences that feel intuitive and engaging while delivering remarkable results not because they contain more information, but because they align perfectly with how our minds construct understanding. [10,11,12,13,14]

Modularity's Hidden Cost: The Structural Challenge of AI-Generated and OER Content

The educational world has enthusiastically embraced modular content... bite-sized learning resources that can be mixed, matched, and rearranged to suit different needs. While this flexibility offers obvious appeal, it comes with a significant but rarely discussed trade-off: coherence often becomes the casualty of convenience.

In practice, OER adoption often introduces structural inconsistency across materials—resulting in increased prep time for educators and fragmented learning experiences for students. The very openness that makes these resources accessible can undermine their effectiveness in real classroom settings.

When learning experiences are broken into independent modules, the vital connections between concepts frequently disappear. Instead of a coherent knowledge landscape, learners encounter isolated "knowledge islands" with no clear bridges between them. The concepts may be individually sound, but without the contextual links that give them meaning in relation to each other, students struggle to construct an integrated and holistic understanding of the subject.

This fragmentation is compounded when modules come from different sources, each with its own terminology, visual conventions, and conceptual frameworks. A biology module from one provider might use completely different models and language than a related module from another source, even when covering similar material. For learners, this creates continuous cognitive friction as they expend mental energy reconciling these contradictions rather than deepening their understanding.

Perhaps most significantly, modular approaches often lack the careful scaffolding that builds competence progressively. Concepts that should be introduced in a specific sequence to support understanding may appear in arbitrary order. The thoughtful progression from fundamental to advanced applications disappears, making knowledge transfer difficult, especially for complex subjects that require integration across multiple concepts.

These hidden costs of modularity don't mean we should abandon flexible learning resources. Rather, they highlight why structure and coherence must be deliberately preserved, not treated as optional features. The most effective educational environments strike a balance, offering flexibility within a thoughtfully designed structural framework that maintains the essential connections between ideas. [15,16,17]

The Measurable Impact of Coherence

These structural weaknesses aren't just theoretical concerns… they translate into measurable differences in learning outcomes that have been documented across educational contexts.

When students encounter content with explicit structural connections, their ability to transfer knowledge dramatically improves. Rather than simply recalling information in the same context it was learned, they can successfully apply concepts to entirely new situations. This transfer ability... the holy grail of education ...emerges when learners understand not just individual facts but the conceptual frameworks that connect them. Studies show that students who grasp these structural relationships outperform their peers on novel problem-solving tasks, demonstrating deeper understanding rather than surface memorization.

The benefits extend beyond transfer to fundamental thinking skills. As learners integrate concepts within coherent structures, they develop more sophisticated mental models of the subject. These robust mental frameworks enable higher-order cognitive processes like analysis, evaluation, and synthesis... the advanced thinking skills that distinguish true mastery from basic competence.

Perhaps surprisingly, structural clarity also drives psychological factors crucial for learning success. Students working with well-structured materials demonstrate greater motivation, persistence through challenges, and more effective learning strategies. This impact becomes especially pronounced in challenging circumstances (like online learning environments or particularly difficult subjects) where student autonomy plays a larger role.

These research findings confirm what thoughtful educators have always known: structure isn't just an aesthetic concern or organizational convenience... it's a fundamental driver of learning effectiveness with measurable impact on outcomes that matter. [18,19,20]

Bringing Structure to Life

Today's digital learning environments offer unprecedented opportunities to make knowledge structures visible, adaptive, and engaging in ways that transform the learning experience.

Unlike static textbooks and linear lectures, digital tools, including AI-generated content, can implement dynamic sequencing that adapts to individual learner needs. These systems continuously assess understanding, ensuring students master prerequisite concepts before encountering more advanced topics. If a learner struggles with a foundational idea, the system reinforces that understanding before moving forward, creating personalized pathways through content that maintain coherent progression for each individual.

Digital environments also excel at making conceptual relationships explicit through interactive visualizations. Abstract connections between ideas (often invisible in traditional formats) become tangible learning pathways that students can explore, manipulate, and internalize. These visual knowledge maps help learners develop mental models that mirror the structure of the discipline itself, supporting both comprehension and long-term retention.

Perhaps most powerful is how digital tools can embed ongoing assessment that evaluates structural understanding, not just factual recall. Rather than simply checking whether students remember isolated pieces of information, these assessments evaluate whether learners grasp the relationships between concepts and can navigate the knowledge architecture of the subject. This approach provides real-time feedback that guides students toward deeper understanding of the interconnected nature of knowledge.

The transformative potential of these structural approaches becomes clear in the data. Educational programs that emphasize coherent structural design consistently show significant improvements in completion rates, engagement metrics, and most importantly, conceptual understanding.

This emerging evidence reinforces a fundamental principle: in digital learning environments, just as in traditional ones, organizational architecture often matters more than content abundance. The most effective digital tools don't simply deliver more information; They make structural relationships visible, navigable, and meaningful. [21,22,23]

When Structure Might Be Less Valuable

While coherent structure demonstrably enhances learning in most contexts, a thoughtful analysis must acknowledge that the relationship between structure and learning isn't always straightforward. Certain educational scenarios benefit from approaches that appear less rigidly structured on the surface, though a closer examination reveals more nuanced dynamics at play.

Consider creative domains like artistic expression, design thinking, and scientific discovery. These fields often incorporate periods of open exploration where learners engage in divergent thinking without predetermined pathways. This exploratory freedom can catalyze novel connections and innovative solutions that might never emerge within more constrained frameworks. However, even the most creative educational environments typically surround these explorations with structural elements (introducing foundational principles before exploration begins and incorporating structured reflection afterward to consolidate learning). The most effective creative education doesn't abandon structure entirely but alternates between exploratory freedom and organizing frameworks that help learners make sense of their discoveries.

A similar pattern emerges in expertise development. As learners progress from novice to advanced status, their relationship with structure evolves. Advanced learners sometimes benefit from productive struggle within semi-structured environments that challenge them to develop their own organizational frameworks rather than following predetermined ones. Yet research consistently shows this approach succeeds primarily because these learners have already internalized fundamental structures through their earlier education. Their seemingly unstructured exploration is actually guided by internalized mental models that provide invisible but powerful organization—not because structure itself has become unnecessary.

Individual differences further complicate the picture. The optimal degree of explicit structure varies based on learners' prior knowledge, cognitive styles, and personal preferences. What appears as "unstructured" in personalized learning environments might actually represent adaptively structured approaches tailored to individual needs. These personalized pathways leverage what cognitive science tells us about variability in how different minds process and organize information, creating customized structures rather than abandoning structure altogether.

These apparent exceptions ultimately reinforce rather than undermine our thesis. They demonstrate not the absence of structure, but its evolution and adaptation across different contexts. Even in seemingly unstructured learning environments, invisible scaffolding shapes the experience, whether through carefully designed choice architectures, strategic sequencing of opportunities, or thoughtfully timed interventions.

The most sophisticated educational approaches recognize that structure exists on a spectrum rather than as a binary presence or absence. They calibrate the degree of explicit guidance based on learner needs, subject matter requirements, and specific learning objectives. This nuanced understanding allows us to design experiences that provide sufficient structural support to enable comprehension while creating appropriate space for exploration, personalization, and the development of self-directed learning capabilities. [32,33,34]

Measuring What Matters

Traditional evaluation methods have overwhelmingly focused on content retention… checking whether students can recall facts, formulas, or specific information when prompted. While factual knowledge certainly matters, these conventional assessments largely miss a more fundamental dimension of understanding: the structural coherence of a learner's knowledge.

Forward-thinking educational organizations are now developing assessments that evaluate structural understanding… examining not just what learners know, but how they organize and apply that knowledge. These approaches measure whether students grasp conceptual relationships, can navigate knowledge hierarchies, and transfer understanding across contexts.

The distinction lies in the questions these assessments prioritize. While content-focused evaluations ask "What do you know?", structure-focused assessments ask more revealing questions: "How do you organize what you know?" and "How do you use what you know?" These inquiries reveal whether learners have constructed mental frameworks that make knowledge useful and adaptable rather than merely present.

This shift represents a fundamental reconceptualization of meaningful learning. By measuring structural understanding, we gain insight into learners' capacity not just to retain information but to continue growing intellectually. Strong knowledge frameworks provide scaffolding for incorporating new information and generating novel insights… capabilities that become increasingly vital in complex, rapidly evolving knowledge environments.

Structure as Foundation for AI and Knowledge Evolution

Structure's importance extends beyond human learning to shape both artificial intelligence and the advancement of knowledge itself. Modern AI systems demonstrate this principle vividly: those trained on coherent, structured content consistently generate more accurate, useful, and aligned outputs compared to systems trained on fragmentary information collections. This relationship creates a virtuous cycle where better knowledge structures enable more effective AI, which can then help humans organize information more coherently.

This pattern reflects a broader truth about knowledge evolution throughout human history. Civilizations that successfully advanced knowledge... not just preserved it …did so by developing robust structural frameworks that organized existing understanding while creating architecture for new discoveries. Scientific breakthroughs typically emerge not from random fact accumulation but from restructuring existing knowledge to reveal new patterns and possibilities. Without deliberate attention to knowledge structures, we risk creating digital echo chambers that merely recirculate existing information rather than generating genuine intellectual progress.

The implication is profound: if we focus exclusively on content generation without equal investment in structural innovation, our knowledge systems (both human and artificial) will increasingly spin in place rather than advance. True knowledge evolution requires continuous refinement of our organizing principles, taxonomies, and conceptual models alongside the expansion of our information base. [24,25,26,27]

What Educators, Platforms, and Policymakers Must Do Now

The most valuable aspect of educational content isn't the information it contains; it's the framework that transforms that information into understanding. This insight demands practical application across the educational ecosystem, requiring specific shifts in how we approach learning design and evaluation.

Content developers must fundamentally reimagine their creative process, beginning with conceptual mapping rather than jumping directly to production. This means dedicating significant time to visualizing knowledge architecture (identifying core concepts, mapping relationships between ideas, and designing explicit pathways through content) before creating individual learning assets. When structure leads and content follows, the resulting materials naturally facilitate deeper understanding.

Technology platforms supporting education need to evolve beyond their current role as content repositories. Rather than simply storing and delivering information, these systems should reveal and reinforce conceptual structures… making learning progressions visible, highlighting relationships between ideas, and helping users navigate knowledge domains meaningfully. The most valuable platforms won't just provide access to more content but will help users understand how that content fits together.

For policymakers and educational leaders, this perspective necessitates new evaluation criteria for educational resources. Beyond traditional metrics like engagement statistics or content coverage, they must assess structural coherence as a core quality indicator. This means examining how well resources make conceptual relationships explicit, support progressive understanding, and enable knowledge transfer across contexts. By prioritizing coherence in funding, adoption, and accreditation decisions, leaders can drive system-wide improvement in educational quality.

These actions, taken together, can transform our educational landscape from one focused on content delivery to one designed around knowledge architecture… creating learning experiences that don't just inform but truly transform understanding . [28,29,30]

Architecture for the Age of Abundance

In a world of information abundance, the scarcest and most valuable resource isn't content it's coherence.

By recognizing the central role of structure in learning, we can transform education… not just by giving learners more, but by helping them make sense of what they already have.

As we navigate the AI revolution and continuing digital transformation in education, our success will depend not on who accumulates the most content or generates the most AI material, but who designs the most effective structures for understanding.

The future belongs to the architects of knowledge… those who create frameworks that transform information into insight and facts into wisdom.

References

[1] Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2020). Information overload: An introduction. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.

[2] Chi, M. T., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 371-399.

[3] Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

[4] Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.

[5] De Risi, V. (2016). Euclid's Elements and its impact on the history of science. In Mathematizing Space (pp. 3-48). Springer, Cham.

[6] Cohen, I. B. (2017). The Newtonian revolution. Cambridge University Press.

[7] Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. Springer.

[8] College Board. (2019). AP Course and Exam Redesign.

[9] Berman, E. H. (2018). The influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations on American foreign policy: The ideology of philanthropy. SUNY Press.

[10] Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. John Wiley & Sons.

[11] Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and instruction, 16(3), 183-198.

[12] Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological review, 101(3), 371.

[13] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

[14] Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Routledge.

[15] Lang, C., Siemens, G., Wise, A., & Gasevic, D. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of learning analytics. SOLAR, Society for Learning Analytics and Research.

[16] Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.

[17] Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451-498.

[18] Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189-203.

[19] Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.

[20] Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students' self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245-257.

[21] Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 245-252).

[22] Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 600-614.

[23] Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer‐based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1-19.

[24] LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.

[25] Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Pantheon.

[26] De Langhe, B., & Fernbach, P. (2019). The danger of interpreting metrics. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(2), 66-68.

[27] Barabási, A. L. (2016). Network science. Cambridge university press.

[28] Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. ASCD.

[29] Baker, R. S. (2019). Challenges for the future of educational data mining: The Baker learning analytics prizes. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 11(1), 1-17.

[30] Means, B., & Anderson, K. (2021). Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education.

[31] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

[32] Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6-23.

[33] Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.

[34] Rose, L. T., Rouhani, P., & Fischer, K. W. (2013). The science of the individual. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(3), 152-158.