Quizgecko in Quiz Generation
Scenario-level performance from current published Results.
11 scenarios with published Results · 15 scenarios in the benchmark
How Quizgecko performed
Open a capability to explore its scenarios. Each row reports the test set in its published Result; counts are not combined into an overall score.
Answer Feedback2 scenarios · 2 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| The learner gives a clearly wrong answer | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko 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. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The learner's answer is partly correct | 1 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 2 test cases passed · 1 failedWhat happenedQuizgecko gave useful feedback for the partly correct answer, but its scored result treated that same answer as fully correct. The explanation named what the learner got right and what idea was missing, while the score card still showed Correct and +15 XP with no partial-credit mark. | 2/2 assessed2/2 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Class Reports1 scenario · 1 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| The teacher checks what the class struggled with | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedQuizgecko does not surface the class's shared weakness in the teacher report. The class view shows 28 completed sessions and a 16% average, while the difficulty/ease panels have blank question rows; both learners' own results are 81% on 53 questions. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Grading3 scenarios · 2 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| The learner answers some fixed-answer questions correctly and others incorrectly | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko graded the mixed fixed-answer attempt correctly. Live question views and the results table distinguished correct from incorrect answers, and the final score matched the row-by-row judgments at 17 of 53 correct, or 32%. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The learner's answer is partly correct | 1 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 2 test cases passed · 1 failedWhat happenedQuizgecko gave useful feedback for the partly correct answer, but its scored result treated that same answer as fully correct. The explanation named what the learner got right and what idea was missing, while the score card still showed Correct and +15 XP with no partial-credit mark. | 2/2 assessed2/2 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The learner answers correctly in their own words | No published result | ||
Learner Progress1 scenario · 1 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| The learner checks whether they are improving | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedQuizgecko fails to show learner progress by topic in this scenario. The counts line up with the attempts, but the captured views stay at quiz or question level, so the improved topic never appears more positive and the weaker topic never appears as needing work. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Personalized Practice2 scenarios · 1 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| One topic is weaker than the others | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko focused practice on the weaker topic for each learner. Lavi's review card and first question point to parallel-circuit practice, while Anshika's card and review questions point to series-circuit practice; one Anshika item is shown wrong. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The learner returns to the material later | No published result | ||
Quiz Delivery2 scenarios · 1 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A learner takes a quiz on their own | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko let a learner complete and submit a quiz alone. The saved attempt showed 36%, 19 of 53 correct, 53 answered, and a 3m 8s completion time, and answers stayed hidden until submission. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A teacher gives the quiz to a class | No published result | ||
Quiz Generation5 scenarios · 4 with published Results
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cleanly scanned document | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko passed this clean-scan quiz-generation scenario. It read an image-only PDF with no text layer and generated keyed questions that matched figure-only circuit symbols, table values, and other chapter facts. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| Important information appears in both text and a diagram | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedQuizgecko failed this scenario: it returned a 39-question quiz that covered the chapter’s text-based ideas, but it missed the diagram-only food web. The food-web questions stayed abstract and never named the diagram’s unique organisms. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The user asks the quiz to test a particular learning goal | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedQuizgecko passed this learning-goal scenario. The uploaded electric-circuits chapter is shown, along with settings and generated questions that ask for explanation rather than recall; the visible model answers cover both required ideas: current is not used up or shared out, and a series loop has one path. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The user turns study material into a quiz | 2 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 2 of 2 test cases passedWhat happenedQuizgecko turned study material into quizzes in both accepted runs. One run produced a 53-question multiple-choice quiz from English material; the other produced a 33-question multiple-choice quiz in Hindi. Both covered the chapter’s core ideas, though some questions repeated facts and some math text rendered as raw LaTeX. | 2/2 assessed2/2 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| The user turns a recorded lecture into a quiz | No published result | ||
Reading these Results
Published evidence and test coverage answer different questions.
Which scenarios have a Result?
A published Result is public evidence for this tool on one scenario. “No published result” does not say whether testing has taken place.
What does each Result cover?
Assessed includes Pass, Fail and Not gradable. Gradable includes Pass and Fail. Both use the pinned test count in that published Result.
Inventory is not testing progress
The 15 scenarios describe this benchmark’s scope. They are not an assumed applicability or test-coverage denominator for Quizgecko.