Comparative Study of GenAI (ChatGPT) vs. Human in Generating Multiple Choice Questions Based on the PIRLS Reading Assessment Framework

Human-generated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to ensure objective evaluation in education. However, generating high-quality questions is difficult and time-consuming. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has emerged as an automated approach for question generation, but challenges remain in terms of biases and diversity in training data. This study aims to compare the quality of GenAI-generated MCQs with humans-created ones. In Part 1 of this study, 16 MCQs were created by humans and GenAI individually with alignment to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assessment framework. In Part 2, the quality of MCQs generated was assessed based on the clarity, appropriateness, suitability, and alignment to PIRLS by four assessors. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted to compare GenAI versus humans generated MCQs. The findings highlight GenAI's potential as it was difficult to differentiate from human created questions and offer recommendations for integrating AI technology for the future.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UCL Discovery (University College London)
Published
2024-10-01
Primary Topic
Laser Design and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Study of GenAI (ChatGPT) vs. Human in Generating Multiple Choice Questions Based on the PIRLS Reading Assessment Framework

UCL Discovery (University College London)
Laser Design and Applications
article

Comparative Study of GenAI (ChatGPT) vs. Human in Generating Multiple Choice Questions Based on the PIRLS Reading Assessment Framework

article en

Abstract

Human-generated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to ensure objective evaluation in education. However, generating high-quality questions is difficult and time-consuming. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has emerged as an automated approach for question generation, but challenges remain in terms of biases and diversity in training data. This study aims to compare the quality of GenAI-generated MCQs with humans-created ones. In Part 1 of this study, 16 MCQs were created by humans and GenAI individually with alignment to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assessment framework. In Part 2, the quality of MCQs generated was assessed based on the clarity, appropriateness, suitability, and alignment to PIRLS by four assessors. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted to compare GenAI versus humans generated MCQs. The findings highlight GenAI's potential as it was difficult to differentiate from human created questions and offer recommendations for integrating AI technology for the future.

UCL Discovery (University College London)
Metropolitan University (BD), University of Hong Kong (HK)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Laser Design and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.