In a Spaced repetition memory system review session, if I make a typo in my SQL expression because I’ve misremembered the name of a function, that’s bad and I should probably review the task again. But if I make a typo because my finger slipped, I’m still “right” as frat I’m concerned. False negatives are extremely irritating in machine-graded systems. They’re also inefficient, of course, since the prompt will re-appear sooner. But enraging the user is the much more serious issue.
Machine-graded systems introduce various mechanics to avoid this problem—e.g. allowing some small edit distance, or some known dictionary of alternative spellings. These are necessarily incomplete measures.
See the section How to use (or not use!) the questions in Quantum computing for the very curious for more; e.g.:
You’ve probably noticed the questions are self-assessed. If you want to mark yourself “correct” sometimes, even when you’re not, go for it! What impact do you think that will have on your learning? Do you enjoy the slightly transgressive feeling? I must admit that I do. Don’t be embarrassed, if so: this is supposed to be, above all else, fun. Or try marking yourself wrong when you’re correct, or skipping the questions entirely. What impact do these actions have on your learning? The point is to figure out how to engage with the questions to learn as rapidly as possible. And that means experimenting playfully with how you engage, to find what works for you.
Matuschak, A., & Nielsen, M. (2019, March). Quantum computing for the very curious. Quantum Country. https://quantum.country/qcvc