Top

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Published in:

21-02-2020 | Original research

Detecting the Depth and Progression of Learning in Massive Open Online Courses by Mining Discussion Data

Authors: Venkata Sai Pillutla, Andrew A. Tawfik, Philippe J. Giabbanelli

Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Issue 4/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In massive open online courses (MOOCs), learners can interact with each other using discussion boards. Automatically inferring the states or needs of learners from their posts is of interest to instructors, who are faced with a high attrition in MOOCs. Machine learning has previously been successfully used to identify states such as confusion or posting questions, but no solution has yet been provided so that instructors can track the progress of the learners using a validated framework from education research. In this paper, we develop a model to automatically label a post based on the first phase of the interaction analysis model (IAM). This allows instructors to automatically identify whether students are stating opinions, clarifying details, or engaging in activities such as providing examples to peers. Our model is tested on a Coursera MOOC devoted to Chemistry, for which we are able to correctly categorize the IAM status in 4 out of 5 posts. Our approach thus provides instructors with an intelligent system that generates actionable learning assessment data and can cope with large enrollment. Using the system, instructors can quickly identify and remedy learning issues, thus supporting learners in attaining their intended outcomes.

previous article MOOCs: Origins, Concept and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012–2019)

next article A Model and Tool to Support Pedagogical Scenario Building for Connectivist MOOC

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Agrawal, A., et al. (2015). YouEDU: Addressing confusion in MOOC discussion forums by recommending instructional video clips. Stanford InfoLab: In National Science Foundation.

Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Rangwala, H. (2018). Needle in a haystack: identifying learner posts that require urgent response in MOOC discussion forums. Computers and Education, 118, 1–9.CrossRef

Amemado, D., & Manca, S. (2017). Learning from decades of online distance education: MOOCs and the Community of Inquiry Framework. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(2). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/180225/.

Arguello, J., & Shaffer, K. (2015). Predicting speech acts in MOOC forum posts. In Ninth international AAAI conference on web and social media.

Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers and Education, 94, 49–60.CrossRef

Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Kim, M., Xu, S., Sabir, N., & Sari, A. R. (2018). Pushing toward a more personalized MOOC: Exploring instructor selected activities, resources, and technologies for MOOC design and implementation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl04233/1055530ar/abstract/.

Chapman, S. A., Goodman, S., Jawitz, J., & Deacon, A. (2016). A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses. Evaluation and Program Planning, 57, 55–63.CrossRef

Chawla, N. V., et al. (2002). SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321–357.CrossRef

Cohen, A., Shimony, U., Nachmias, R., & Soffer, T. (2019). Active learners’ characterization in MOOC forums and their generated knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 177–198.CrossRef

Crutzen, R., & Giabbanelli, P. J. (2014). Using classifiers to identify binge drinkers based on drinking motives. Substance Use and Misuse, 49(1–2), 110–115.CrossRef

Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Inequality and school resources: What it will take to close the opportunity gap. In P. Carter & K. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 77–97). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Fan, J., & Fan, Y. (2008). High dimensional classification using features annealed independence rules. Annals of Statistics, 36(6), 2605.CrossRef

Giabbanelli, P. J., & Adams, J. (2016). Identifying small groups of foods that can predict achievement of key dietary recommendations: data mining of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey, 2008–2012. Public Health Nutrition, 19(9), 1543–1551.CrossRef

Goggins, S., Galyen, K., Petakovic, E., & Laffey, J. (2016). Connecting performance to social structure and pedagogy as a pathway to scaling learning analytics in MOOCs: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 32(3), 244–266.CrossRef

Gunawardena, C. N., et al. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRef

He, J., Bailey, J., Rubinstein, B. I. P., & Zhang, R. (2015). Identifying at-risk students in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1749–1755).

Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers and Education, 91, 83–91.CrossRef

Japkowicz, N. (2003). Class imbalances: are we focusing on the right issue. In Workshop on learning from imbalanced data sets II (vol. 1723, p. 63).

Joachims, T. (1998). Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. In European conference on machine learning (pp. 137–142). Springer.

Joo, Y. J., So, H. J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Examination of relationships among students’ self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers and Education, 122, 260–272.CrossRef

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 133–160.CrossRef

Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2017). A framework towards educational scalability of open online courses. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 23(9), 845–867.

Kennedy, G., Coffrin, C., De Barba, P., & Corrin, L. (2015). Predicting success: how learners’ prior knowledge, skills and activities predict MOOC performance. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 136–140). ACM.

Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers and Education, 104, 18–33.CrossRef

Klusener, M., & Fortenbacher, A. (2015). Predicting students’ success based on forum activities in MOOCs. In 2015 IEEE 8th international conference on intelligent data acquisition and advanced computing systems (vol. 2, pp. 925–928).

Kuncheva, L. I. (2004). Combining pattern classifiers: methods and algorithms. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef

Liu, W., Kidzinski, L., & Dillenbourg, P. (2016). Semiautomatic annotation of mooc forum posts. In State-of-the-art and future directions of smart learning (pp. 399–408). Singapore: Springer.CrossRef

Lucas, M., Gunawardena, C., & Moreira, A. (2014). Assessing social construction of knowledge online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 574–582.CrossRef

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRef

Nagrecha, S., Dillon, J. Z., & Chawla, N. V. (2017). MOOC dropout prediction: Lessons learned from making pipelines interpretable. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, WWW ‘17 Companion (pp. 351–359).

Reeves, T., & Bonk, C. (2015). MOOCs: Redirecting the quest for quality higher education for all. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 385–399.

Robinson, S. (2014). Simulation: the practice of model development and use. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Rose, C.P., & Siemens, G. (2014) Shared task on prediction and dropout over time in massively open online courses. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), 39–41. Doha, Qatar, October 25–29.

Rossi, L. A., & Gnawali, O. (2014). Language independent analysis and classification of discussion threads in coursera MOOC forums. In 15th international conference on information reuse and integration (IRI), 2014 IEEE (pp. 654–661). IEEE.

Rosso, N., & Giabbanelli, P.J. (2018) Accurately inferring compliance to five major food guidelines through simplified surveys: applying data mining to the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 4(2). https://publichealth.jmir.org/2018/2/e56/.

Shao, Z. (2018). Examining the impact mechanism of social psychological motivations on individuals’ continuance intention of MOOCs. Internet Research. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IntR-11-2016-0335/full/html.

Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers and Education, 110, 35–50.CrossRef

Spector, J. (2014). Remarks on MOOCs and mini-MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385–392.CrossRef

Spector, J. M. (2017). A critical look at MOOCs. In M. J. Kinshuk & M. K. Khribi (Eds.), Open education: From OERs to MOOCs (pp. 135–147). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C., McDade, J., et al. (2017). The nature and level of learner-learner inter-action in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 411–431.CrossRef

Torres, W. J., & Beier, M. E. (2018). Adult development in the wild: The determinants of autonomous learning in a massive open online course. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 207–217.CrossRef

Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448.CrossRef

Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 17–30.

Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11–20.CrossRef

Wise, A. F., Cui, Y., Jin, W. Q., & Vytasek, J. (2017). Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 11–28.CrossRef

Xing, W., Chen, X., Stein, J., & Marcinkowski, M. (2016). Temporal predication of dropouts in MOOCs: Reaching the low hanging fruit through stacking generalization. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 119–129.CrossRef

Zawacki-Richter, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2018). What research says about MOOCs–An explorative content analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).

Title: Detecting the Depth and Progression of Learning in Massive Open Online Courses by Mining Discussion Data
Authors: Venkata Sai Pillutla
Andrew A. Tawfik
Philippe J. Giabbanelli
Publication date: 21-02-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Electronic ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09434-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

The Development of Transformative Learning Scale for Information and Communication Technologies

Exploring Student Activity with Learning Analytics in the Digital Environments of the Nebrija University

A Model and Tool to Support Pedagogical Scenario Building for Connectivist MOOC

Competences in Context: Students’ Expectations and Reflections as Guided by the Mobile Application Reflect.UP

Learner Control Aids Learning from Instructional Videos with a Virtual Human

Personalized Learning Within Online Workforce Learning Environments: Exploring Implementations, Obstacles, Opportunities, and Perspectives of Workforce Leaders

Premium Partners