Does Studyglen recognize a learner's partial understanding in grades and feedback?
Studyglen explained the learner's partial understanding, but graded the answer as incorrect without partial credit. It showed 55% similarity versus 0% for a response expressing no understanding; its feedback identified the correct brightness comparison and the missing voltage and battery-life ideas.
1 of 2 test cases passed · 1 failed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
The 2 test cases
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on these test cases.
A partly correct answer, scoredFailEvidence
Typed the answer into the Question 8 answer box.
AI evaluation for Question 8 The answer captures that the lamps are brighter in parallel than in series. It omits the explanation that each lamp receives the full supply potential difference and misses the key battery-life consequence: the parallel circuit draws more total current, causing the battery to run down faster. Explanation for Question 8 Parallel branches allow each lamp to be driven more strongly, but their currents add at the battery, increasing the total current supplied.
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
| ✗ | Expected: Represent the answer as partially correct through a score, credit or judgment, distinct from both full correctness and no relevant understanding.Found: Similarity was 55%, versus 0% for a response expressing no understanding; the answer was marked incorrect without partial credit or partially correct status. |
The answer needed a partially correct score or judgment, not just a similarity measurement. Grading completed through the normal quiz submission, yet the result remained binary. The problem was how the product represented partial understanding, not an unfinished grading attempt.
A partly correct answer, explainedPassEvidence
Typed the answer into the Question 8 answer box.
AI evaluation for Question 8 The answer captures that the lamps are brighter in parallel than in series. It omits the explanation that each lamp receives the full supply potential difference and misses the key battery-life consequence: the parallel circuit draws more total current, causing the battery to run down faster. Explanation for Question 8 Parallel branches allow each lamp to be driven more strongly, but their currents add at the battery, increasing the total current supplied.
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: Identify the learner's correct understanding and missing essential ideas, and explain what must be added or corrected for a complete answer.Found: It acknowledged brighter parallel lamps and identified the missing ideas: full supply voltage across each lamp and greater total current draining the battery faster. |
The feedback addressed what was understood, what was missing and how to complete the answer. Responses expressing no understanding received substantively different evaluations, so this was answer-specific guidance rather than a generic model answer.
Personalized and shared guidance. The Question 8 feedback has an answer-specific AI evaluation and a separate physics explanation that stays the same for any answer to that question.
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 | Grading → | |
| Capability | Answer Feedback → | |
| Scenario | The learner's answer is partly correct → | |
| Tool | Studyglen → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition: Grading → · Global capability definition: Answer Feedback → · 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.