This work was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Teaching Reform Project and the Teaching Reform Project of South China Agricultural University under the project “Application and Exploration of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Mathematics Teaching: A Case Study of the Core Mathematics Courses Real Analysis and Functional Analysis.”
Abstract
Undergraduate Real Analysis is usually presented in the logical order of the finished subject, even though this order does not always make visible the mathematical problems that give rise to new concepts. This paper examines an alternative way of organizing the course: beginning with questions that expose a limitation in students’ current mathematical language or methods and using the resolution of one question to prepare the next. On this basis, we developed the QADAN instructional model, in which a learning unit moves through Question, Analysis, Discovery, Answer, and Next Question. The model was used to reconstruct a 32-hour Real Analysis course into 64 connected units covering sets, measure, measurable functions, Lebesgue integration, differentiation, and Lp spaces. Rather than treating generative AI as an additional instructional stage, the design assigns it a supporting role in selected activities, while mathematical interpretation, proof, and validation remain the responsibility of learners and teachers. The opening sequence on set language is examined to show how a local QADAN cycle can function as part of a longer curriculum-level question chain. The resulting framework offers a concrete way to connect mathematical dependency, intellectual need, and lesson design in a proof-oriented undergraduate course. Because the present study concerns curriculum development and theoretical coherence, claims about its effects on student learning await classroom-based empirical investigation.
References
Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2005). Proof validation in real analysis: Inferring and checking warrants. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(2), 125-134.
Dawkins, P. C. (2014). How students interpret and enact inquiry-oriented defining practices in undergraduate real analysis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 88-105.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 275-282). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harel, G. (2013). Intellectual need. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 119-151). Springer.
Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review. Mathematics, 9(6), 584.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Tall, D. O. (Ed.). (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151-169.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39.
How to cite this paper
Reconstructing Undergraduate Real Analysis in the AI Era: The QADAN Instructional Model
How to cite this paper: Haichou Li, Xueqin Wang. (2026). Reconstructing Undergraduate Real Analysis in the AI Era: The QADAN Instructional Model. The Educational Review, USA, 10(6), 381-385.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2026.06.008