Ontology-based Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) generation has a relatively short history. Many attempts have been carried out to develop methods to generate MCQs from ontologies. However, there
is a still a need to understand the applicability of these methods in real educational settings. In this paper, we present an empirical evaluation
of ontology-based MCQ generation. We examine the feasibility of applying ontology-based MCQ generation methods by educators with no prior experience in ontology building. The ndings of this study show that
this is feasible and can result in generating a reasonable number of educationally useful questions with good predictions about their difficulty levels.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. Automatic generation of analogy questions for student assessment: an ontology-based approach. In ALT-C2012 ConferenceProceedings, 2012.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. Mining ontologies for analogy questions: A similarity-based approach. In OWLED, 2012.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. Next generation of e-assessment: automatic generation of questions. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3/4):156–171, 2012.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. A similarity-based theory of controlling mcq difficulty. In Second International Conferenceon e-Learning and e-Technologies in Education (ICEEE), pages 283–288, 2013.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. Generating multiple choice questions from ontologies: Lessons learnt. In The 11th OWL: Experiences and Directions Work-shop (OWLED2014), 2014.
T. Alsubait, B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. Measuring similarity in ontologies: How bad is a cheap measure? In 27th Inernational Workshop on Description Logics(DL-2014), 2014.
F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. (eds.) Patel-Schneider. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2007.
B. S. Bloom and D. R. Krathwohl. Taxonomyof educational objectives: The classificationof educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1956.
B. G. Davis. Toolsfor Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
T. Gavrilova, R. Farzan, and P. Brusilovsky. One practical algorithm of creating teaching ontologies. In 12th International Network-Based Education ConferenceNBE, pages 29–37, 2005.
T. M. Haladyna. Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaum, 1994.
T.M. Haladyna and S.M. Downing. How many options is enough for a multiple choice test item? Educational& Psychological Measurement, 53(4):999–1010, 1993.
M. Horridge. A practical guide to building OWL ontologies using Prot´eg´e 4 and CO-ODE tools, edition 1.3. http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/ [accessed: 18-04-2014], 2011.
M. Horridge and S. Bechhofer. The OWL API: A Java API for working with OWL 2 ontologies. In In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on OWL:Experiences and Directions (OWLED), 2009.
M. Miller, R. Linn, and N. Gronlund. Measurementand Assessment in Teaching,TenthEdition. Pearson, 2008.
R. Mitkov, L. An Ha, and N. Karamani. A computer-aided environment for gen- erating multiple-choice test items.cambridge university press. NaturalLanguageEngineering, 12(2):177–194, 2006.
A. Papasalouros, K. Kotis, and K. Kanaris. Automatic generation of multiple-choice questions from domain ontologies. In IADIS e-Learning 2008 conference, Amsterdam, 2008.
M. Paxton. A linguistic perspective on multiple choice questioning. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2):109–119, 2001.
L. Rudner. Elements of adaptive testing, chapter Implementing the Graduate Man- agement Admission Test computerized adaptive test, pages 151–165. New York, NY: Springer, 2010.
J. T. Sidick, G. V. Barrett, and D. Doverspike. Three-alternative multiple-choice tests: An attractive option. Personnel Psychology, 47:829–835, 1994.
S. Sosnovsky and T. Gavrilova. Development of educational ontology for C- Programming. In Proceedingsof the XI-th International Conference Knowledge-Dialogue-Solution, vol. 1, pp. 127132. FOI ITHEA, 2006.
D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System descrip- tion. In Proceedingsof the 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Rea-soning (IJCAR), 2006.
S. Williams. Generating mathematical word problems. In 2011 AAAI Fall Sym-posiumSeries, 2011.
B. Zitko, S. Stankov, M. Rosic, and A. Grubisic. Dynamic test generation over ontology-based knowledge representation in authoring shell. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 36(4):8185–8196, 2008.
