MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909234132 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13101

Student preference between single-box and multi-box homework problem answers using WeBWorK, an online homework system

2018· article· en· W2909234132 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Agnes D’Entremont

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceComputer sciencePath (computing)Mathematics educationMathematicsStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WeBWorK is an open-source online homework platform used in mathematics as well as engineering, where students can be assigned calculated answer engineering science problems. Problems with staged answers (multi-box) problems are possible on this system, and could offer feedback for the answers at each intermediate step of the solution. This would allow students to determine the step where they had an error (or deficit in understanding), similar to providing a hint on what their specific error was in adaptive feedback systems.Second-year students in a mechanical engineering program were exposed to both single- and multi-box questions in WeBWorK and were asked to give feedback about their preferences. The vast majority of students reported that they believed that the multi-box questions provided them good feedback on which step or calculation had error(s). They also pointed out the multi-box problems sped up finding errors in their solutions. However, a large minority indicated concern that multi-box problems constrained the solution to a particular path.Based on these results, providing some multi-box problems may assist students in finding their errors through more detailed feedback on their solution. This may be more effective earlier in a particular topic or in the first problems at any given complexity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207