WeBWorK log files as a rich source of data on student homework behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The online homework system WeBWorK has been successfully used at several hundred colleges and universities. Despite its popularity, the WeBWorK system does not provide detailed metrics of student performance to instructors. In this article, we illustrate how an analysis of the log files of the WeBWorK system can provide information such as the amount of time students spend on WeBWorK assignments and how long they persist on problems. We estimate the time spent on an assignment by combining log file events into sessions of student activity. The validity of this method is confirmed by cross referencing with another time estimate obtained from a learning management system. As an application of these performance metrics, we contrast the behaviour of students with WeBWorK scores less than 50% with the remainder of the class in a first year Calculus course. This reveals that on average, the students who fail their homework start their homework later, have shorter activity sessions, and are less persistent when solving problems. We conclude by discussing the implications of WeBWorK analytics for instructional practices and for the future of learning analytics in undergraduate mathematics education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".