Look at the Choices too: An Examination of Looking Behaviours in a Multiple Choice Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines students' ocular behaviours during a multiple choice exam. Specifically, we are interested in how students would approach a multiple choice item visually and whether there is attention bias due to the location of the options. Participants (N = 22) were students enrolled in an Introductory Psychology class who had recently completed the course midterm exam. For this study, students were administered an alternate but comparable version of the midterm exam designed so that visual behaviours could be measured throughout the exam taking. The exam consisted of 52 multiple choice items with four possible options (one target and three distracters). During exam participation, students' ocular behaviors were recorded using a desktop mounted eye tracker system (EyeLink 1000). Dwell time, run count, and pupil size were measured in five areas of interest on each item: question, option A, B, C & D. On correct trials we found that students dwelled longer on the target than the question and distracters. Also, they tended to looked longer at the earlier options (A & B) than the latter options (C & D). In the cases when target location was at B or C, students showed longer dwell time at the distracters located prior to the target than the distracters located following the target. Furthermore, the run count data revealed that these differences in looking time might be a result of the differences in the number of times they went back to the options. In contrast to the previous research on multiple choice exams that suggests the location of the options has little impact on students' performance, the results of this study demonstrated an attention bias towards distracters that were positioned earlier in an item. These findings suggest that scrambling item options could lead to performance differences based solely on location.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".