> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.lamsfoundation.org/lams/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.lamsfoundation.org/lams/question-bank/mark-distribution.md). # Mark Distribution ## Create a mark distribution question Use a mark distribution question when you want students to divide the available marks across several answer options. This format is also known in LAMS as **mark hedging**. A student who is certain can allocate all marks to one option. A student who is uncertain can spread marks across several options, reducing the risk of receiving no credit but also reducing the maximum score available if one of those options is correct. Mark distribution is based on a single-best-answer question. It can reveal uncertainty that a conventional MCQ conceals, but it also measures how students choose to manage that uncertainty. It is not the same as a confidence rating: in a confidence rating, reported confidence does not normally change the mark; in mark distribution, the allocation directly determines the score. ### How scoring works The **Default question grade** provides the mark budget that students distribute. The marks allocated to the correct option become the student's score for the question. For example, suppose the question is worth `5` marks and option D is correct: | Student allocation | Result | | ---------------------------------------- | ------: | | 5 marks on D | 5 marks | | 3 marks on D and 2 marks on B | 3 marks | | 1 mark on D and 4 marks on other options | 1 mark | | No marks on D | 0 marks | Allocating marks to an incorrect option does not earn marks. It reduces the number that the student can place on the correct option. Before consequential use, preview the student view and verify the complete scoring calculation. Explain the rule to students and give them an ungraded practice question; unfamiliarity with the allocation method should not determine their result. ### Before you create the question Start with the learning outcome and decide whether mark distribution provides useful evidence. The format is most appropriate when: * one option is clearly the best answer; * uncertainty is meaningful to the learning design; * distinguishing partial knowledge from a forced guess is useful; and * students understand the consequences of spreading their marks. Do not use mark distribution when several answers are correct, when partial correctness belongs to the content rather than the student's uncertainty, or when risk-taking preferences would create irrelevant differences in marks. Students with the same knowledge may allocate marks differently because of confidence, strategy or risk aversion. Treat the resulting score as evidence about knowledge under this scoring rule, not as a pure measure of knowledge or calibrated confidence. ### Create the question 1. Enter a short, distinctive **Question's title**. Use the title to identify and manage the item in the Question Bank. Do not put information here that students need in order to answer the question. 2. Enter the problem in **Question's description**. Write a focused question with one clearly best answer. Tell students to distribute the available marks across the options according to their judgement. 3. Enter each option in a separate **Answer** field. LAMS provides three answer fields initially. Select **Add another answer** when you need an additional option. 4. Identify the single correct option. LAMS stores exactly one option as correct. Some authoring views expose a **Correct/Wrong** control in the option settings. In the screen shown, use the supplied drag-and-drop answer arrangement to place the correct option in the designated keyed position. Because this screen does not visibly label the keyed position, confirm the correct option in Preview before saving or deploying the question. Allocate the full mark budget to that option and verify that LAMS awards the full grade. Then allocate the full budget to each distractor in turn and verify that each receives zero. 5. Add feedback, configure the advanced settings and tag the relevant learning outcome or outcomes. 6. Select **Save**. ### Write effective answer options Apply the same quality standards as a single-best-answer MCQ: * make the keyed option clearly best under the stated conditions; * use plausible distractors based on common errors or misconceptions; * keep options grammatically parallel and similar in detail; * avoid clues based on length, terminology or wording; * avoid **all of the above** and overlapping options; * avoid negative wording unless it is essential; and * ensure that a knowledgeable student could defensibly place the full budget on one option. Mark distribution does not repair an ambiguous MCQ. If two options are defensible, spreading marks may appear rational but the scoring key will still privilege one. Revise the question rather than treating ambiguity as productive uncertainty. ### Add feedback for students The feedback panel contains four optional fields. | Field | What to enter | | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **General feedback** | An explanation, reference or worked reasoning useful to every student. | | **Feedback shown on any correct response** | Feedback for a response that receives full credit. | | **Feedback shown on any partially correct response** | Guidance for a student who placed some, but not all, marks on the correct option. | | **Feedback shown on any incorrect response** | Guidance for a student who placed no marks on the correct option. | Use partially correct feedback to address uncertainty productively. Explain the evidence that distinguishes the correct option from the most plausible distractors. Do not tell students simply to “be more confident”; confidence should follow better reasoning and evidence. The feedback fields apply to response categories, not necessarily to each individual allocation pattern. Write them so they remain meaningful for students who distributed marks differently. Check the settings of the activity that uses the banked question, because that activity determines when feedback appears. ### Configure the advanced settings #### Default question grade Enter the total number of marks students must distribute. The interface accepts an integer, for example `1`, `5` or `10`. A grade of `1` leaves little room for meaningful distribution. Use a larger budget when you want students to express degrees of uncertainty, while keeping the question's overall assessment weight proportionate. For example, a five-mark budget permits allocations such as `5–0–0`, `3–2–0` or `2–2–1`. Do not choose a large budget merely to create an appearance of precision. An allocation of 63 versus 64 marks does not necessarily represent a meaningful difference in judgement. #### Shuffle answers? Turn this on to vary the displayed order of the options. The screenshot shows this setting enabled. Shuffling is normally appropriate because the keyed option should not be identifiable from its authoring position. Leave it off only when the options have an intentional order that does not disclose the answer. Do not refer to answer letters or positions in the question or feedback when shuffling is enabled. Preview several deliveries to ensure the option text and scoring key stay associated correctly. #### Ask for mark distribution justification? Turn this on when students should explain why they allocated their marks as they did. The screenshot shows this setting enabled. A justification can provide evidence that the numerical allocation alone cannot: * the reasoning behind the preferred option; * why another option retained some plausibility; * the evidence or assumption that created uncertainty; or * a misconception hidden behind a fortunate allocation. Tell students what a useful justification should contain and whether it contributes to the grade. If you collect justifications, plan how you will review or use them; requiring text that nobody reads creates workload without supporting learning. The automatic mark-distribution score does not evaluate the quality of the justification. If reasoning must receive marks, provide a separate criterion or assessment process rather than assuming the score captures it. #### Learning outcomes Search by outcome name or code, then select every learning outcome for which the question provides meaningful evidence. Tag the outcome at the level actually assessed. Allocating marks among supplied options usually demonstrates recognition and decision-making under uncertainty. The optional justification may provide additional evidence of reasoning, but only if you review it against clear expectations. Avoid tagging every broadly related outcome. Across an assessment, review the distribution of questions by outcome, cognitive demand and weighting. ### Use mark distribution appropriately Mark distribution can encourage students to consider uncertainty rather than make an all-or-nothing guess. It can also support discussion: students can compare how they allocated marks and explain which evidence would move their allocation. However, do not describe the allocation as a calibrated probability unless you explicitly teach and validate that interpretation. The marks are a scoring decision constrained by a fixed budget. They may reflect knowledge, confidence, strategy and risk preference together. For low-stakes learning, use allocations as prompts for feedback, peer discussion and reflection. For high-stakes assessment: * teach the scoring rule in advance; * provide practice with feedback; * check whether the rule advantages particular risk strategies; * use enough questions to reduce the influence of one allocation decision; and * combine results with other forms of evidence. ### Use mark distribution within a programme of assessment Treat each allocation as one data point. It can add information about uncertainty to a selected-response question, but it does not demonstrate performance, communication or sustained judgement by itself. Combine mark distribution with explanations, team discussion, constructed responses or authentic performance when the learning outcome requires richer evidence. Higher-stakes decisions should draw on multiple data points collected over time rather than one hedged response. ### Review the question after use * Check that the keyed option received full marks in every shuffled position. * Review how often students spread marks and whether the pattern was educationally meaningful. * Identify distractors that attracted substantial allocations and examine the underlying misconception. * Compare allocations with written justifications where available. * Check whether students misunderstood the fixed mark budget or scoring rule. * Investigate whether risk strategy, rather than content knowledge, dominated performance. * Review whether full, partial and incorrect feedback appeared as intended. * Revise ambiguous options before reuse. * Record substantive revisions as a new version so materially different questions are not treated as directly comparable. ### Final check Before you save or deploy the question, confirm that: * one option is clearly the best answer; * the correct option is keyed and awards the full default grade; * the mark budget is large enough for useful distribution but not falsely precise; * students will receive an explanation and practice with the scoring rule; * shuffled answers preserve the correct key; * feedback supports full, partial and incorrect response patterns; * a required justification has a clear purpose and review process; * the question measures a tagged learning outcome at the intended level; * the interaction is accessible on the target devices; and * you have tested representative allocations in the receiving LAMS activity. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://docs.lamsfoundation.org/lams/question-bank/mark-distribution.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.