journal article·2025-08-13Open access

AI Chatbots as Tools for Designing Evaluations in Road Geometric Design According to Bloom’s Taxonomy

Yasmany García-Ramírez

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 16

Abstract

In the realm of educational assessment, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising pathway for the development of robust evaluations. This study explores the application of AI chatbots in crafting and validating examinations tailored to road geometric design, while adhering to the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Utilizing Gemini AI Studio, three distinct exam versions were generated, covering eight crucial topics within road geometric design. A panel of expert chatbots, including Chat GPT 3.5, Claude 3, Sonet, Copilot, Perplexity, and You, assessed the validity of the exam content. These chatbots achieved scores of 9.17 or higher, establishing their proficiency as experts. Subsequent evaluations focused on relevance and wording, revealing high scores for both metrics, indicating the adequacy of the assessment tools. The two remaining versions were administered to student groups enrolled in the Road Construction II course at the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Only 1.2% of students reached Bloom’s Taxonomy level 3, with many questions deemed easy, leading to varying trends in cognitive levels. Comparative analysis of student scores revealed significant discrepancies between a previous “classic” exam. While AI shows potential in crafting valid assessments aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy, greater human involvement is necessary to ensure high-quality instrument generation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Knowledge Management in Higher Education · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Quality and Safety in Healthcare

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. Flores Cuautle, J.d.J.A. (2024). Development and Evaluation of a Diagnostic Exam for Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Students Using GPT Language Model-Based Virtual Agents, Springer Nature.
2. A Discussion about the Impact of ChatGPT in Education: Benefits and Concerns10.22158/jbtp.v11n2p28 ↗
3. ChatGPT: Optimizing Text Generation Model for Knowledge Creation
4. ChatGPT versus Human in Generating Medical Graduate Exam Multiple Choice Questions—A Multinational Prospective Study (Hong Kong S.A.R., Singapore, Ireland, and the United Kingdom)10.1371/journal.pone.0290691 ↗
5. Sreelakshmi, A.S., Abhinaya, S.B., Nair, A., and Jaya Nirmala, S. (2019). A Question Answering and Quiz Generation Chatbot for Education. Proceedings of the Grace Hopper Celebration India (GHCI), Bangalore, India, 6–8 November 2019, IEEE.10.1109/GHCI47972.2019.9071832 ↗
6. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Edwards Brothers.
7. Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman.
8. “I Wish I Could Rank My Exam’s Challenge Level!”: An Algorithm of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Teaching CS1
9. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Prospective Teachers’ Preparation in Pakistan
10. Reanimationstraining Für Laien in Erste-Hilfe-Kursen: Vermittlung von Wissen, Fertigkeiten Und Haltungen10.1007/s00101-015-0113-8 ↗
11. Comparing the Performance of ChatGPT-4 and Medical Students on MCQs at Varied Levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy10.2147/AMEP.S457408 ↗
12. American Society of Civil Engineers (2019). Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Preparing the Future Civil Engineer, American Society of Civil Engineers.
13. Can ChatGPT Help College Instructors Generate High-Quality Quiz Questions?
14. ChatGPT for Academic Writing: A Game Changer or a Disruptive Tool?10.4103/joacp.joacp_84_23 ↗
15. Analysis and Improvement of Engineering Exams Toward Competence Orientation by Using an AI Chatbot
16. Investigating the Use of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot with General Chemistry Exam Questions10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027 ↗
17. Performance of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot in Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.1144 ↗
18. Assessing ChatGPT’s Mastery of Bloom’s Taxonomy Using Psychosomatic Medicine Exam Questions: Mixed-Methods Study10.2196/52113 ↗
19. Meo, S.A., Al-Masri, A.A., Alotaibi, M., Meo, M.Z.S., and Meo, M.O.S. (2023). ChatGPT Knowledge Evaluation in Basic and Clinical Medical Sciences: Multiple Choice Question Examination-Based Performance. Healthcare, 11.10.3390/healthcare11142046 ↗
20. My AI Students: Evaluating the Proficiency of Three AI Chatbots in Completeness and Accuracy10.30935/cedtech/14564 ↗
21. García-Ramírez, Y. (2022). Diseño Geométrico y Operación de Carreteras de Dos Carriles, Ediciones de la U. [1st ed.].
22. Towards the Identification of the Optimal Number of Relevance Categories10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:3<254::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-Y ↗
23. Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 ↗
24. Item-Wording and the Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Do They Matter?10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00331-8 ↗
25. Constructing Validity: New Developments in Creating Objective Measuring Instruments10.1037/pas0000626 ↗
26. A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5 ↗
27. Lai, V., Chen, C., Smith-Renner, A., Liao, Q.V., and Tan, C. (2023). Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: An Overview of Design Space in Empirical Human-Subject Studies. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/3593013.3594087 ↗
28. Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of Ratings10.1177/0013164485451012 ↗
29. The Theory of the Estimation of Test Reliability10.1007/BF02288391 ↗
30. (Minitab, 2005). Minitab, version 14.2.
31. Wang, Z., Chen, L., You, H., Xu, K., He, Y., Li, W., Codella, N., Chang, K.W., and Chang, S.F. (2023). Dataset Bias Mitigation in Multiple-Choice Visual Question Answering and Beyond. Find. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. EMNLP, 8598–8617.10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.576 ↗
32. Answer-Level Calibration for Free-Form Multiple Choice Question Answering
33. Khatun, A., Brown, D.G., and Cheriton, D.R. (2024). A Study on Large Language Models’ Limitations in Multiple-Choice Question Answering. Comput. Lang., 1–17.
34. Myrzakhan, A., Bsharat, S.M., and Shen, Z. (2024). Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-Choice to Open-Style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena. Comput. Lang., 1–19.
35. Índice de Dificultad y Discriminación de Ítems Para La Evaluación en Asignaturas Básicas de Medicina