Design and evaluation of a question-answering system based on knowledge graph-augmented large language models in K-12 artificial intelligence curriculum


Abstract

The education sector is currently undergoing a digital transformation, fostering the development of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled learner-centered education ecosystem. General AI education leverages large language models (LLMs) to create a new paradigm for intelligent teaching. However, LLMs often produce factual errors and insufficient explanations, which can degrade the teaching quality. Therefore, the bottleneck in knowledge credibility must be overcome, and the reasoning interpretability of LLMs in the context of professional teaching needs to be improved. To solve this problem, this study proposes a question-answering system based on knowledge graph (KG)-augmented LLMs in the K-12 AI curriculum, which enhances the answers of LLMs by injecting AI course KGs externally. The proposed system is evaluated by constructing an AI curriculum dataset containing 1098 data points in aggregate, which are categorized into three difficulty levels, using the G-Eval automatic evaluation framework combined with no-reference metrics. The system is evaluated while accessing three mainstream LLMs in five dimensions using DeepSeek-V3 as the scoring model. The results indicate that the proposed system can address the “hallucination” problem of existing LLMs in AI course knowledge questions to a certain extent, which underscores the efficacy of curriculum KGs in mitigating cognitive biases and logical inconsistencies in LLM-generated domain-specific answers. Thus, it offers a viable engineering approach towards adapting generative AI to educational contexts. We believe that this study is of great practical value for improving the quality of general AI education and contributes to the further development of AI curriculum-based education.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].