Are Highly Motivated Learners More Likely to Complete a Computer Programming MOOC?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer programming MOOCs attract people who have different motivations. Previous studies have hypothesized that the motivation declared before starting the course can be an important predictor of distinctive dropout rates. The aim of this study was to outline the main motivation clusters of participants in a computer programming MOOC, and to compare how these clusters differed in terms of intention to complete and actual completion rate. The sample consisted of 1,181 respondents to the pre-course questionnaire in the Introduction to Programming MOOC. A validated motivation scale, based on expectancy-value theory and k-means cluster analysis, was used to form the groups. The four identified clusters were named as Opportunity motivated (27.7%), Over-motivated (28.6%), Success motivated (19.6%) and Interest motivated (24.0%). Comparison tests and chi-square test were used to describe the differences among the clusters. There were statistically significant differences among clusters in self-evaluated probability of completion. Also, significant differences emerged among three clusters in terms of percentages of respondents who completed the MOOC. Interestingly, the completion rate was the lowest in the Over-motivated cluster. A statistically significant higher ratio of completers to non-completers was found in the Opportunity motivated, Success motivated, and Interest motivated clusters. Our findings can be useful for MOOC instructors, as a better vision of participants’ motivational profiles at the beginning of the MOOC might help to inform the MOOC design to better support different needs, potentially resulting in lower dropout rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".