Types of Participant Behavior in a Massive Open Online Course
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="3">In recent years there has been a proliferation of massive open online courses (MOOCs), which provide unprecedented opportunities for lifelong learning. Registrants approach these courses with a variety of motivations for participation. Characterizing the different types of participation in MOOCs is fundamental in order to be able to better evaluate the phenomenon and to support MOOCs developers and instructors in devising courses which are adapted for different learners' needs. Thus, the purpose of this study was to characterize the different types of participant behavior in a MOOC. Using a data mining methodology, 21,889 participants of a MOOC were classified into clusters, based on their activity in the main learning resources of the course: video lectures, discussion forums, and assessments. Thereafter, the participants in each cluster were characterized in regard to demographics, course participation, and course achievement characteristics. Seven types of participant behavior were identified: <em>Tasters</em> (64.8%), <em>Downloaders</em> (8.5%), <em>Disengagers</em> (11.5%), <em>Offline</em> <em>Engagers</em> (3.6%), <em>Online Engagers</em> (7.4%), <em>Moderately Social Engagers</em> (3.7%), and <em>Social Engagers</em> (0.6%). A significant number of 1,020 participants were found to be engaged in the course, but did not achieve a certificate. The types are discussed according to the established research questions. The results provide further evidence regarding the utilization of the flexibility, which is offered in MOOCs, by the participants according to their needs. Furthermore, this study supports the claim that MOOCs' impact should not be evaluated solely based on certification rates but rather based on learning behaviors.</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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it