Types of Participant Behavior in a Massive Open Online Course
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".