Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Gavin Witsken

dblp:402/3438 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computing education
automated question generation
0.912025
LLMs in the Classroom: Outcomes and Perceptions of Questions Written with the Aid of AI · AAAI 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mann-whitney u test · 0.9large language model · 0.9cosine similarity · 0.9SBERT · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 LLMs in the Classroom: Outcomes and Perceptions of Questions Written with the Aid of AI
abstract
This study evaluates the usage of OpenAI’s ChatGPT Large Language Model (LLM) as a tool for constructing multiple choice questions for assessing student academic performance through quizzes and exams. We randomly deploy questions constructed with and without use of the LLM tool and gauge the ability of the students to correctly answer, as well as their ability to correctly perceive the difference between human-authored and LLM-authored questions. In determining whether the questions written with the aid of ChatGPT were consistent with the instructor’s questions and source text, we computed representative vectors of both the human and ChatGPT questions using SBERT and compared cosine similarity to the course textbook. A non-significant Mann- Whitney U test (z = 1.018, p = .309) suggests that students were unable to perceive whether questions were written with or without the aid of ChatGPT. However, student scores on LLM-authored questions were almost 9% lower (z = 2.702, p < .01). This result may indicate that either the AI questions were more difficult or that the students were more familiar with the instructor’s style of questions. Overall, the study suggests that while there is potential for using LLM tools to aid in the construction of assessments, care must be taken to ensure that the questions are fair, well-composed, and relevant to the course material.
Gavin Witsken, Igor Crk, Eren Gultepe
AAAI1