A Data-driven Method for the Detection of Close Submitters in Online Learning Environments

ABSTRACT

Online learning has become very popular over the last decade. However, there are still many details that remain unknown about the strategies that students follow while studying online. In this study, we focus on the direction of detecting 'invisible' collaboration ties between students in online learning environments. Specifically, the paper presents a method developed to detect student ties based on temporal proximity of their assignment submissions. The paper reports on findings of a study that made use of the proposed method to investigate the presence of close submitters in two different massive open online courses. The results show that most of the students (i.e., student user accounts) were grouped as couples, though some bigger communities were also detected. The study also compared the population detected by the algorithm with the rest of user accounts and found that close submitters needed a statistically significant lower amount of activity with the platform to achieve a certificate of completion in a MOOC. These results confirm that the detected close submitters were performing some collaboration or even engaged in unethical behaviors, which facilitates their way into a certificate. However, more work is required in the future to specify various strategies adopted by close submitters and possible associations between the user accounts.

References

1. P. Adamopoulos. What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. In ICIS 2013 Proceedings, Dec. 2013.
2. z-Valiente, Chen, Muñoz-Merino, and Pritchard}alexandron2017copyingG. Alexandron, J. A. Ruipérez-Valiente, Z. Chen, P. J. Muñoz-Merino, and D. E. Pritchard. Copying@Scale: Using harvesting accounts for collecting correct answers in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 2017.
3. R. Baker, J. Walonoski, N. Heffernan, I. Roll, A. Corbett, and K. Koedinger. Why students engage in" gaming the system" behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19 (2): 185, 2008.
4. R. D. Bock. Multivariate Statistical Methods in Behavioral Research. Scientific Software International, Jan. 1985.
5. J. H. Bray and S. E. Maxwell. Multivariate Analysis of Variance. SAGE, 1985.
6. C. Brooks, C. Stalburg, T. Dillahunt, and L. Robert. Learn with friends: The effects of student face-to-face collaborations on massive open online course activities. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale, pages 241--244. ACM, 2015.
7. L. Carvalho and P. Goodyear. The architecture of productive learning networks. Routledge, 2014.
8. D. B. Clark, V. Sampson, A. Weinberger, and G. Erkens. Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19 (3): 343--374, 2007.
9. D. D. Curtis and M. J. Lawson. Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 5 (1): 21--34, 2001.
10. J. DeBoer, A. D. Ho, G. S. Stump, and L. Breslow. Changing "Course": Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 43 (2): 74--84, 2014.
11. D. Garrison. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Taylor & Francis, 2011.
12. N. Gillani and R. Eynon. Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23: 18--26, 2014.
13. N. Gillani, R. Eynon, M. Osborne, I. Hjorth, and S. Roberts. Communication communities in MOOCs. pharXiv preprint arXiv:1403.4640, 2014.
14. C. R. Glass, M. S. Shiokawa-Baklan, and A. J. Saltarelli. Who Takes MOOCs? New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015 (167): 41--55, 2016.
15. C. N. Gunawardena, C. A. Lowe, and T. Anderson. 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, 1997.
16. L. Harasim. Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and higher education, 3 (1): 41--61, 2000.
17. C. Jones. Networked learning: an educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Springer, 2015.
18. N. Li, H. Verma, A. Skevi, G. Zufferey, J. Blom, and P. Dillenbourg. Watching moocs together: investigating co-located mooc study groups. Distance Education, 35 (2): 217--233, 2014.
19. C. G. Northcutt, A. D. Ho, and I. L. Chuang. Detecting and preventing "multiple-account" cheating in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 100: 71--80, 2016.
20. P. Oleksandra and D. Shane. Untangling mooc learner networks. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, pages 208--212. ACM, 2016.
21. R. Pekrun, T. Goetz, W. Titz, and R. P. Perry. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational psychologist, 37 (2): 91--105, 2002.
22. J. Reich. Rebooting MOOC Research. Science, 347 (6217): 34--35, 2015.
23. J. Reich, B. Stewart, K. Mavon, and D. Tingley. The civic mission of moocs: Measuring engagement across political differences in forums. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pages 1--10. ACM, 2016.
24. J. A. Ruiperez-Valiente, G. Alexandron, Z. Chen, and D. E. Pritchard. Using multiple accounts for harvesting solutions in moocs. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale, pages 63--70. ACM, 2016.
25. N. M. Webb. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International journal of Educational research, 13 (1): 21--39, 1989.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Education

    • Collaborative learning

    • Distance learning

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

    • Data mining

• Theory of computation

  • Theory and algorithms for application domains