Search for: All records

Abstract Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) admit unconfounded design-based inference – randomization largely justifies the assumptions underlying statistical effect estimates – but often have limited sample sizes. However, researchers may have access to big observational data on covariates and outcomes from RCT nonparticipants. For example, data from A/B tests conducted within an educational technology platform exist alongside historical observational data drawn from student logs. We outline a design-based approach to using such observational data for variance reduction in RCTs. First, we use the observational data to train a machine learning algorithm predicting potential outcomes using covariates and then use that algorithm to generate predictions for RCT participants. Then, we use those predictions, perhaps alongside other covariates, to adjust causal effect estimates with a flexible, design-based covariate-adjustment routine. In this way, there is no danger of biases from the observational data leaking into the experimental estimates, which are guaranteed to be exactly unbiased regardless of whether the machine learning models are “correct” in any sense or whether the observational samples closely resemble RCT samples. We demonstrate the method in analyzing 33 randomized A/B tests and show that it decreases standard errors relative to other estimators, sometimes substantially. 

This study investigates stopout patterns in MOOCs to understand course and assessment-level factors that influence student stopout behavior. We expanded previous work on stopout by assessing the exponential decay of assessment-level stopout rates across courses. Results confirm a disproportionate stopout rate on the first graded assessment. We then evaluated which course and assessment level features were associated with stopout on the first assessment. Findings suggest that a higher number of questions and estimated time commitment in the early assessments and more assessments in a course may be associated with a higher proportion of early stopout behavior. 

While MOOCs have been widely studied in terms of student engagement and academic performance, the extent to which engagement within MOOCs predict career advancement remains underexplored. Building on prior work, this study investigates how participation in discussion forums, specifically social presence and the use of course-relevant keywords, affects career advancement. Using GPT-assisted content analysis of forum posts, we assess how these engagement factors relate to both achievement during the course and post-course career advancement. Our findings indicate that social presence and use of course-relevant keywords has a positive relationship with course achievement during the MOOC. However, no significant relationship was found between career advancement and either social presence or course-related keywords in discussion forums. These findings suggest that while active engagement in MOOC discussion forums enhances academic achievement, it might not directly translate into career advancement, highlighting a possible disconnect between learning participation in MOOCS and professional outcomes. 

There has been increasing interest in data enclaves in recent years, both in education and other fields. Data enclaves make it possible to conduct analysis on large-scale and higher-risk data sets, while protecting the privacy of the individuals whose data is included in the data sets, thus mitigating risks around data disclosure. In this article, we provide a post-mortem on the MORF (MOoc Replication Framework) 2.1 infrastructure, a data enclave expected to sunset and be replaced in the upcoming years, reviewing the core factors that reduced its usefulness for the community. We discuss challenges to researchers in terms of usability, including challenges involving learning to use core technologies, working with data that cannot be directly viewed, debugging, and working with restricted outputs. Our post-mortem discusses possibilities for ways that future infrastructures could get past these challenges. 

There have been numerous efforts documenting the effects of open science in existing papers; however, these efforts typically only consider the author's analyses and supplemental materials from the papers. While understanding the current rate of open science adoption is important, it is also vital that we explore the factors that may encourage such adoption. One such factor may be publishing organizations setting open science requirements for submitted articles: encouraging researchers to adopt more rigorous reporting and research practices. For example, within the education technology discipline, theACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) has been promoting open science practices since 2018 through a Call For Papers statement. The purpose of this study was to replicate previous papers within the proceedings of L@S and compare the degree of open science adoption and robust reproducibility practices to other conferences in education technology without a statement on open science. Specifically, we examined 93 papers and documented the open science practices used. We then attempted to reproduce the results with invitation from authors to bolster the chance of success. Finally, we compared the overall adoption rates to those from other conferences in education technology. Although the overall responses to the survey were low, our cursory review suggests that researchers at L@S might be more familiar with open science practices compared to the researchers who published in the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM): 13 of 28 AIED and EDM responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 7 unfamiliar with preprints, while only 2 of 7 L@S responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 0 with preprints. The overall adoption of open science practices at L@S was much lower with only 1% of papers providing open data, 5% providing open materials, and no papers had a preregistration. All openly accessible work can be found in an Open Science Framework project. 

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students' knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconceptions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 academic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the effectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, regardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a significant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Common Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation. 

In past work, time management interventions involving prompts, alerts, and planning tools have successfully nudged students in online courses, leading to higher engagement and improved performance. However, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of these interventions over time, understanding if the effectiveness maintains or changes based on dosage (i.e., how often an intervention is provided). In the current study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to test if the effect of a time management intervention changes over repeated use. Students at an online computer science course were randomly assigned to receive interventions based on two schedules (i.e., high-dosage vs. low-dosage). We ran a two-way mixed ANOVA, comparing students' assignment start time and performance across several weeks. Unexpectedly, we did not find a significant main effect from the use of the intervention, nor was there an interaction effect between the use of the intervention and week of the course. 

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have increased the accessibility of quality educational content to a broader audience across a global network. They provide access for students to material that would be difficult to obtain locally, and an abundance of data for educational researchers. Despite the international reach of MOOCs, however, the majority of MOOC research does not account for demographic differences relating to the learners' country of origin or cultural background, which have been shown to have implications on the robustness of predictive models and interventions. This paper presents an exploration into the role of nation-level metrics of culture, happiness, wealth, and size on the generalizability of completion prediction models across countries. The findings indicate that various dimensions of culture are predictive of cross-country model generalizability. Specifically, learners from indulgent, collectivist, uncertainty-accepting, or short-term oriented, countries produce more generalizable predictive models of learner completion. 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union contains directions on how user data may be collected, stored, and when it must be deleted. As similar legislation is developed around the globe, there is the potential for repercussions across multiple fields of research, including educational data mining (EDM). Over the past two decades, the EDM community has taken consistent steps to protect learner privacy within our research, whilst pursuing goals that will benefit their learning. However, recent privacy legislation may cause our practices to need to change. The right to be forgotten states that users have the right to request that all their data (including deidentified data generated by them) be removed. In this paper, we discuss the potential challenges of this legislation for EDM research, including impacts on Open Science practices, Data Modeling, and Data sharing. We also consider changes to EDM best practices that may aid compliance with this new legislation. 

Despite increased efforts to assess the adoption rates of open science and robustness of reproducibility in sub-disciplines of education technology, there is a lack of understanding of why some research is not reproducible. Prior work has taken the first step toward assessing reproducibility of research, but has assumed certain constraints which hinder its discovery. Thus, the purpose of this study was to replicate previous work on papers within the proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining to accurately report on which papers are reproducible and why. Specifically, we examined 208 papers, attempted to reproduce them, documented reasons for reproducibility failures, and asked authors to provide additional information needed to reproduce their study. Our results showed that out of 12 papers that were potentially reproducible, only one successfully reproduced all analyses, and another two reproduced most of the analyses. The most common failure for reproducibility was failure to mention libraries needed, followed by non-seeded randomness.