MOOC Evaluation System Based on Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are open access, Web-based courses that enroll thousands of students. MOOCs deliver content through recorded video lectures, online readings, assessments, and both student–student and student–instructor interactions. Course designers have attempted to evaluate the experiences of MOOC participants, though due to large class sizes, have had difficulty tracking and analyzing the online actions and interactions of students. Within the broader context of the discourse surrounding big data, educational providers are increasingly collecting, analyzing, and utilizing student information. Additionally, big data and artificial intelligence (AI) technology have been applied to better understand students’ learning processes. Questionnaire response rates are also too low for MOOCs to be credibly evaluated. This study explored the use of deep learning techniques to assess MOOC student experiences. We analyzed students’ learning behavior and constructed a deep learning model that predicted student course satisfaction scores. The results indicated that this approach yielded reliable predictions. In conclusion, our system can accurately predict student satisfaction even when questionnaire response rates are low. Accordingly, teachers could use this system to better understand student satisfaction both during and after the course.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".