Does Studyglen give feedback for a clearly wrong answer that reflects a real misconception?
Studyglen passes this scenario: it gives diagnostic feedback for a wrong answer that reflects a real misconception. On Question 15 it said the response was wrong, gave the continuous-path idea, and matched the source chapter's energy/current distinction.
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 is based on this test case.
Feedback on a recognizable misunderstandingPassEvidence
“The current is used up by each lamp, so it gets smaller after every lamp.”
The response addresses the lamps but gives the opposite explanation: current is not used up by lamps and does not become smaller. It misses the key concept that a series circuit provides one continuous path, so charge cannot split into alternative routes and the current remains the same throughout. The lamps use energy, not current. Since charge has nowhere else to go in the single loop, the same current passes every point.
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screenshot
Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
- Final response (message 1 of 2)
The response addresses the lamps but gives the opposite explanation: current is not used up by lamps and does not become smaller. It misses the key concept that a series circuit provides one continuous path, so charge cannot split into alternative routes and the current remains the same throughout.
- Final response (message 2 of 2)
The lamps use energy, not current. Since charge has nowhere else to go in the single loop, the same current passes every point.
| ✓ | Expected: Explain why the answer is wrong, state the correct idea, and address the learner's misunderstanding rather than only revealing the keyed answer.Found: It said the answer was wrong, gave the continuous-path idea, and explained that the learner had mixed up energy with current. |
It had a wrong answer that reflected a real misconception, and the results card did the needed three things: it marked the response wrong, gave the continuous-path idea, and explained the energy/current distinction that matches the source chapter.
Similarity-based grading. The grade appears as a similarity percentage, and the AI evaluation and learner explanation are shown in separate panels.
Feedback after submit. No feedback appears while the quiz is being answered; it appears only after submission and the evaluation step.
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 test case's result says which one 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 test case's result 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 | Studyglen → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Studyglen 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.