Does Quizgecko explain a clearly wrong answer?
Quizgecko handled the clearly wrong answer by marking it wrong and explaining both the correct series-circuit rule and the learner’s misconception. It showed 0.20 A as the bare ideal answer and then offered follow-up options after feedback.
1 of 1 test case passed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
The test case
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above counts this row.
Feedback on a recognizable misunderstandingPassEvidence
“It should be less than 0.20 A - around 0.10 A - because the first lamp uses up some of the current as it lights up, leaving less for the second lamp.”
Oh dear, lamps don't consume current like snacks! You missed the rule that the current in a series circuit stays the exact same everywhere. You missed that components don't 'use up' current.
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Every message the tool sent, in order (3)
- Final response (message 1 of 3)
Oh dear, lamps don't consume current like snacks!
- Final response (message 2 of 3)
You missed the rule that the current in a series circuit stays the exact same everywhere.
- Final response (message 3 of 3)
You missed that components don't 'use up' current.
| ✓ | Expected: The feedback should explain why the answer is wrong, give the correct idea, and address the learner's misunderstanding.Found: It marked the answer wrong, stated that current stays the same everywhere in a series circuit, and answered the 'uses up current' idea directly while showing 0.20 A separately. |
The answer is wrong, and the feedback gives the series-circuit rule and answers the current-is-used-up idea directly instead of just naming 0.20 A.
Bare ideal answer. The ideal answer appears as the plain value 0.20 A, with the explanation kept separate.
Fragmented source cards. The related-material cards open mid-sentence and one ends mid-word, so the source passage is shown only in fragments.
Missing energy detail. The explanation corrects the current misconception, but it does not say what the lamp uses instead.
Follow-up options. After feedback, the product shows options for the ideal answer, missing parts, chat, and more.
How the quiz was generated from the chapter is not shown.
The follow-up controls were not used, so their responses are unknown.
Only one question is shown, so other question types are not covered.
The product does not expose the marking model or the account plan.
This screenshot shows the answer before submission.
The recording does not show the quiz-building screens.
The explanation column is missing from this crop.
This crop leaves out the question and answer area.
The extra buttons appear, but their actions are not shown.
Only the opening fragment of the card is visible.
Configuration and setup
How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.
- Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
- Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the row says which and quotes the tool.
- Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the row says what's missing.
Where this sits in the benchmark
This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Quiz Generation → | 15 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | Answer Feedback → | |
| Scenario | The learner gives a clearly wrong answer → | |
| Tool | Quizgecko → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Quizgecko product page →
History of this result
What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.
Act on this result
Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.
Verify the proof files
These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.