Cited by 42Natural Language Processing TechniquesEducational Technology and AssessmentTopic Modeling

A Novel Framework for the Generation of Multiple Choice Question Stems Using Semantic and Machine-Learning Techniques

Open access
Kumar, Archana Praveen, Nayak, Ashalatha, K, Manjula Shenoy, Chaitanya, Ghosh, Kaustav·2024·International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Abstract

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are a popular assessment method because they enable automated evaluation, flexible administration and use with huge groups. Despite these benefits, the manual construction of MCQs is challenging, time-consuming and error-prone. This is because each MCQ is comprised of a question called the "stem", a correct option called the "key" along with alternative options called "distractors" whose construction demands expertise from the MCQ developers. In addition, there are different kinds of MCQs such as Wh-type, Fill-in-the-blank, Odd one out, and many more needed to assess understanding at different cognitive levels. Automatic Question Generation (AQG) for developing heterogeneous MCQ stems has generally followed two approaches: semantics-based and machine-learning-based. Questions generated via AQG techniques can be utilized only if they are grammatically correct. Semantics-based techniques have been able to generate a range of different types of grammatically correct MCQs but require the semantics to be specified. In contrast, most machine-learning approaches have been primarily able to generate only grammatically correct Fill-in-the-blank/Cloze by reusing the original text. This paper describes a technique for combining semantic-based and machine-learning-based techniques to generate grammatically correct MCQ stems of various types for a technical domain. Expert evaluation of the resultant MCQ stems demonstrated that they were promising in terms of their usefulness and grammatical correctness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40593-023-00333-6

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The construction of high-quality MCQs type A has been reported to be difficult and time-consuming.

    “The construction of high-quality MCQs type A has been reported to be difficult and time-consuming [4, 7–9].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Alsubait, T. (2015). Ontology-based question generation. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.
  2. Effenberger, T. (2015). Automatic question generation and adaptive practice. PhD thesis, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta informatiky.
  3. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M., et al. (2004). Swrl: A semantic web rule language combining owl and ruleml. W3C Member submission, 21(79), 1-31.
  4. Leo, J., Kurdi, G., Matentzoglu, N., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Forge, S., Donato, G., & Dowling, W. (2019). Ontology-based generation of medical, multiterm mcqs. International Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence in Education, 29(2), 145-188.
  5. Pino, J., Heilman, M., & Eskenazi, M. (2008). A selection strategy to improve cloze question quality. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains. 9th Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada, pages 22-32.
  6. Venugopal, V. E., Alsubait, T., & Kumar, P. S. (2016). Modeling of item difficulty for ontology-based mcqs. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1607. 00869.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, A. P., Nayak, A., K, M. S., Chaitanya, & Ghosh, K.
Affiliations
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
Corresponding author
Nayak, Ashalatha
Venue
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
332-375
ISSN
1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362580133
Cited by
41
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
multiple-choice question generation, automatic question generation, distractor generation, grammatical accuracy, technical domains, expert evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review