Analysis of Time-on-Task, Behavior Experiences, and Performance in Two Online Courses with Different Authentic Learning Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="3">This paper reports the findings of a comparative analysis of online learner behavioral interactions, time-on-task, attendance, and performance at different points throughout a semester (beginning, during, and end) based on two online courses: one course offering authentic discussion-based learning activities and the other course offering authentic design/development-based learning activities. Web log data were collected to determine the number of learner behavioral interactions with the Moodle learning management system (LMS), the number of behavioral interactions with peers, the time-on-task for weekly tasks, and the recorded attendance. Student performance on weekly tasks was also collected from the course data. Behavioral interactions with the Moodle LMS included resource viewing activities and uploading/downloading file activities. Behavioral interactions with peers included discussion postings, discussion responses, and discussion viewing activities. A series of Mann-Whitney tests were conducted to compare the two types of behavioral interactions between the two courses. Additionally, each student's behavioral interactions were visually presented to show the pattern of their interactions. The results indicated that, at the beginning of the semester, students who were involved in authentic design/development-based learning activities showed a significantly higher number of behavioral interactions with the Moodle LMS than did students involved in authentic discussion-based learning activities. However, in the middle of the semester, students engaged in authentic discussion-based learning activities showed a significantly higher number of behavioral interactions with peers than did students involved in authentic design/development-based learning activities. Additionally, students who were given authentic design/development-based learning activities received higher performance scores both during the semester and at the end of the semester and they showed overall higher performance scores than students who were given authentic discussion-based learning activities. No differences were found between the two groups with respect to time-on-task or attendance.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".