Multi-Examiner: A Knowledge Graph-Driven System for Generating Comprehensive IT Questions with Higher-Order Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question generation system (QGS) for information technology (IT) education, designed to create, evaluate, and improve Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) using knowledge graphs (KGs) and large language models (LLMs), encounters three major needs: ensuring the generation of contextually relevant and accurate distractors, enhancing the diversity of generated questions, and balancing the higher-order thinking of questions to match various learning levels. To address these needs, we proposed a multi-agent system named Multi-Examiner, which integrates KGs, domain-specific search tools, and local knowledge bases, categorized according to Bloom’s taxonomy, to enhance the contextual relevance, diversity, and higher-order thinking of automatically generated information technology MCQs. Our methodology employed a mixed-methods approach combining system development with experimental evaluation. We first constructed a specialized architecture combining knowledge graphs with LLMs, then implemented a comparative study generating questions across six knowledge points from K-12 Computer Science Standard. We designed a multidimensional evaluation rubric to assess the semantic coherence, answer correctness, question validity, distractor relevance, question diversity, and higher-order thinking, and conducted a statistical analysis of ratings provided by 30 high school IT teachers. Results showed statistically significant improvements (p < 0.01) with Multi-Examiner outperforming GPT-4 by an average of 0.87 points (on a 5-point scale) for evaluation-level questions and 1.12 points for creation-level questions. The results demonstrated that: (i) overall, questions generated by the Multi-Examiner system outperformed those generated by GPT-4 across all dimensions and closely matched the quality of human-crafted questions in several dimensions; (ii) domain-specific search tools significantly enhanced the diversity of questions generated by Multi-Examiner; and (iii) GPT-4 generated better questions for knowledge points at the “remembering” and “understanding” levels, while Multi-Examiner significantly improved the higher-order thinking of questions for the “evaluating” and “creating” levels. This study contributes to the growing body of research on AI-supported educational assessment by demonstrating how specialized knowledge structures can enhance automated generation of higher-order thinking questions beyond what general-purpose language models can achieve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".