By EduMark team
Before learners see an AI-drafted multiple-choice quiz, independently answer each question, check the keyed answer and verify the feedback explanation. Treat these as three separate checks: a correct answer key does not make an ambiguous question acceptable, and a correct answer can still have a misleading explanation.
The Department for Education’s guidance for England says professionals must check AI-produced content for accuracy and appropriateness. Responsibility for the final resource remains with the professional and their organisation. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/generative-artificial-intelligence-in-education/generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-education))
Five checks for every question
Use the following routine for low-stakes practice quizzes. It draws on selected principles from NBME’s item-writing guide, which originates in health-sciences assessment. These are useful design principles, not universal qualification requirements. ([nbme.org](https://www.nbme.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/NBME_Item%20Writing%20Guide_R_6.pdf))
1. Match the taught objective
Write the intended knowledge or skill beside the question. Does answering it require that skill, at the level taught? For example, identifying a definition is not the same task as applying it to a situation. Remove untaught assumptions or revise the question.
2. Make the question unambiguous
Cover the options and try to answer from the question alone, following NBME’s approach. Specify relevant units, conditions and rounding. If a reviewer must guess what the author meant, rewrite the question rather than relying on the options to clarify it. ([nbme.org](https://www.nbme.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/NBME_Item%20Writing%20Guide_R_6.pdf))
3. Establish one defensible correct answer
Hide the generated key and solve the problem yourself. Check against the actual teaching source, specification or calculation—not merely another AI response. Then test every option against the wording. If two answers are defensible, hold the item for revision.
4. Make wrong options plausible but wrong
NBME recommends plausible options of a consistent kind and removing clues unrelated to subject knowledge. Check for overlapping answers, grammatical giveaways or a noticeably longer correct option. Build wrong answers around identifiable mistakes, not absurd alternatives. ([nbme.org](https://www.nbme.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/NBME_Item%20Writing%20Guide_R_6.pdf))
5. Verify the explanation separately
Read the explanation as teaching content. Recalculate its working, check terminology and confirm that it answers the question actually asked. Explain the relevant misconception without implying that an incorrect option proves why a learner chose it. Remove unsupported claims and check cited sources directly.
Worked example: 10% to 15% is not simply “5% more”
Consider this original, deliberately flawed teaching example. Its intended objective is to calculate a percentage-point increase. The Open University’s explanation of percentage points distinguishes subtracting two percentages from calculating their relative percentage change. ([open.edu](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=115999§ion=3))
| Flawed draft — do not publish | Repaired version |
|---|---|
| Question: A rate rises from 10% to 15%. How much did it increase? | Question: A rate rises from 10% to 15%. By how many percentage points did it increase? |
Options:
| Options:
|
| Draft key: A. Draft explanation: Subtract 10 from 15, so the increase is 5%. | Checked key: A. Checked explanation: 15 − 10 = 5 percentage points. This is different from the relative percentage increase. |
| Fault: “How much” leaves the measure unspecified. B and C describe different valid measures of the change; the draft explanation mislabels subtraction. | Repair: Name the required measure and keep every option in that unit. |
If the objective is relative percentage change, use a different question: “What is the relative percentage increase, compared with the original 10% rate?” The answer is ((15 − 10) ÷ 10) × 100 = 50%. Choose the wording that matches the objective; do not accept either interpretation after publishing an unclear item.
Keep a reusable review record
Copy this table into your review document. Identify the question version and record the source precisely enough for another educator to find it.
| Item, version and source | Independent answer | Fault found | Correction | Reviewer decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example Q1, draft 1; lesson on percentage points and Open University reference above | 5 percentage points; relative increase 50% | Ambiguous measure; incorrect key and explanation | Specify percentage points; replace options and explanation | Revise, then recheck before approval |
| [Question ID, version, source and section] | [Your answer and working] | [Problem or none identified] | [Change made] | [Approve / revise / remove; reviewer and date] |
After editing, preview the learner-facing quiz. Select the correct answer and each wrong answer to inspect the feedback. If options are shuffled, check that the correct answer and explanation remain attached to the right option. Keep unresolved items unpublished and seek a subject colleague’s review where needed.
Use Aurora for preparation, not automatic validation
Aurora, EduMark’s AI assistant, supports draft course preparation and turns assessment documents into questions for educators to check. EduMark’s AI is beta, with human review throughout. Preparing a draft is not evidence that its questions, keys or explanations have been independently validated. ([edumark.ai](https://www.edumark.ai/aurora))
Keep the final decision simple: publish only the version whose question, answer and explanation you have checked together.
Sources & further reading
See how EduMark connects learning, assessment and your team.
Explore EduMark →
