Can Quizgecko test a learning goal that needs a full explanation?
Quizgecko 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 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.
An open-ended question for a stated learning goalPassEvidence
“Focus all questions on testing whether the student can explain why the ammeter reads the same value at every point in a series circuit, even after adding a third lamp. A complete answer must cover: (1) current is not used up or shared out at a component, and (2) since there's only one path in a series loop, the same charge flow passes through every point. Include a model answer covering both elements for each question.”
Response to input 1 Question 1 Three lamps are connected in series in one unbroken loop. Explain why an ammeter placed before the first lamp reads the same current as one placed between the lamps. The current is not used up or shared out by a lamp; the lamp transfers energy from the charges but does not remove the charges. Because the series circuit has only one path, the same charge flow passes through every point in the loop. Explanation Equal ammeter readings in a series circuit result from both charge conservation and the existence of a single conducting path. Response to input 1 Question 2 A student predicts that the first lamp in a series circuit should receive more current because the second lamp has already used some of it. Explain the error in this prediction. A lamp uses energy, not current, so current is not consumed as it passes through the lamp. Since there is only one path in the series loop, the same charge flow must pass through both lamps and every other point. Explanation Confusing energy transfer with the movement of charge leads to the incorrect idea that current decreases after each component. Response to input 1 Question 16 Why can a current of 0.48 A in the common section of a parallel circuit coexist with branch currents of 0.30 A and 0.18 A, while such unequal values would not be expected at different points in a series loop? The parallel current splits at a junction, and $0.30\,\text{A}+0.18\,\text{A}=0.48\,\text{A}$. In a series loop there is no junction or second path: current is not used up or shared out, so the same charge flow passes through every point. Explanation The sum of branch currents gives the total current, unlike a series circuit where there is only one current value throughout the loop. Response to input 1 Question 10 A wire in a series circuit is drawn as a long detour around the page rather than as a short straight line. Explain why an ammeter would still read the same current at equivalent positions in the loop. The drawing’s shape does not change the fact that there is only one continuous path. Current is not used up or shared out by the components, so the same charge flow passes through every point of the unbroken loop. Explanation Circuit behavior depends on electrical connections, not on whether the loop is drawn tall, wide, or with long wire sections.
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 5 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 4 · Screen recording at 5:30
| ✓ | Expected: The question should require explanation, be answerable from the material, and include a correct model answer or grading guidance covering the needed ideas.Found: The visible questions ask for explanation, the chapter supports them, and the model answers cover both needed ideas, with separate explanations. |
The visible questions ask for explanation, not recall, and their model answers cover both required ideas. A separate explanation block appears, and one answer’s math is shown with a display glitch.
Math display glitch. One model answer shows equation markup literally instead of formatted math, while the question stem formats the same numbers normally.
The exact text shown here covers Q1, Q2, Q10 and Q16; it is not a transcript of all twenty generated questions.
The image shows the maximum questions setting, not how many questions the product returned.
The screenshot shows Questions 1-2 in full and only the start of Question 3.
The recording also shows a separate 40-question quiz activity that is not part of this run.
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 | Quiz Generation → | |
| Scenario | The user asks the quiz to test a particular learning goal → | |
| 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.