Choice-based Personalization in MOOCs: Impact on Activity and Perceived Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalization in education describes instruction that is tailored to learners’ interests, attributes, or background and can be applied in various ways, one of which is through choice. In choice-based personalization, learners choose topics or resources that fit them the most. Personalization may be especially important (and under-used) with diverse learners, such as in a MOOC context. We report the impact of choice-based personalization on activity level, learning gains, and satisfaction in a Climate Science MOOC. The MOOC’s learning assignments had learners choose resources on climate-related issues in either their geographic locale (Personalized group) or in given regions (Generic group). 219 learners completed at least one of the two assignments. Over the entire course, personalization increased learners’ activity (number of course events), self-reported understanding of local issues, and self-reported likelihood to change climate-related habits. We found no differences on assignment completion rate, assignment length, and self-reported time-on-task. These results show that benefits of personalization extend beyond the original task and affect learners’ overall experience. We discuss design and implications of choice-based personalization, as well as opportunities for choice-based personalization at scale.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".