Exploring the temporal dimension of forum participation in MOOCs

References

• Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massive open online courses. In C.-W. Chung (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 687–698). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from http://wwwconference.org/proceedings/www2014/forms/index.htm
   Google Scholar
• Ball, G. H., & Hall, D. J. (1965). ISODATA, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbera, E., Gros, B., & Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Paradox of time in research on educational technology. Time & Society, 24, 96–108. doi:10.1177/0961463X14522178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergner, Y., Kerr, D., & Pritchard, D. E. (2015). Methodological challenges in the analysis of MOOC data for exploring the relationship between discussion forum views and learning outcomes. In J. G. Boticario, & O. C. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on educational data mining (pp. 234–241). Madrid, Spain: International Educational Data Mining Society. Retrieved from http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2015/proceedings/full234-241.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brinton, C., Chiang, M., Jain, S., Lam, H., Liu, Z., & Wong, F. (2014). Learning about social learning in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7, 346–359. doi:10.1109/TLT.2014.2337900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J., Gibbs, A. L., Najafi, H., & Severinski, C. (2014). A comparison of learner intent and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 235–262. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canal, L., Ghislandi, P., & Micciolo, R. (2015). Pattern of accesses over time in an online asynchronous forum and academic achievements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 619–628. doi:10.1111/bjet.12158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Duda, R. O., & Hart, P. E. (1973). Pattern classification and scene analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, D., Mankoff, C., & Carbrey, J. (2015). Coursera’s introductory human physiology course: Factors that characterize successful completion of a MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 46–68. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genolini, C., & Falissard, B. (2010). KmL: K-means for longitudinal data. Computational Statistics, 25, 317–328. doi:10.1007/s00180-009-0178-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Goggins, S., & Xing, W. (2016). Building models explaining student participation behavior in asynchronous online discussion. Computers & Education, 94, 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. Calico Journal, 30, 342–370. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.30.3.342
   Google Scholar
• Huang, J., Dasgupta, A., Ghosh, A., Manning, J., & Sanders, M. (2014, March). Superposter behavior in MOOC forums. In L@S ‘14 proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning @ scale conference (pp. 117–126). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2556325.2566249
   Google Scholar
• Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 51, 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170–179). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2460296.2460330
   Google Scholar
• Kizilcec, R. F., & Schneider, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: Toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22, 2. doi:10.1145/2699735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. C., Chen, W. C., Lin, H. M., & Huang, Y. Y. (2017). A remix-oriented approach to promoting student engagement in a long-term participatory learning program. Computers & Education, 110, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. C., Lin, C. C., Deng, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Online knowledge sharing experience with creative commons. Online Information Review, 38, 680–696. doi:10.1108/OIR-12-2013-0280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. C., Wang, P. C., & Tai, S. J. D. (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 28, 104–122. doi:10.1017/S095834401600001X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59. doi:10.1080/10508400701793182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I. (2014). Advances in temporal analysis in learning and instruction. Frontline Learning Research, 2(4), 15–24. doi:10.14786/flr.v2i4.118
   Google Scholar
• Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course. Computers & Education, 95, 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pingault, J. B., Côté, S. M., Vitaro, F., Falissard, B., Genolini, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (2014). The developmental course of childhood inattention symptoms uniquely predicts educational attainment: A 16-year longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research, 219, 707–709. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.06.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pingault, J. B., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Carbonneau, R., Genolini, C., Falissard, B., & Côté, S. M. (2011). Childhood trajectories of inattention and hyperactivity and prediction of educational attainment in early adulthood: A 16-year longitudinal population-based study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 1164–1170. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10121732
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable-and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 239–257. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9070-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosé, C. P., Carlson, R., Yang, D., Wen, M., Resnick, L., Goldman, P., & Sherer, J. (2014, March). Social factors that contribute to attrition in MOOCs. In L@S ‘14, Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning @ scale conference (pp. 197–198). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2556325.2567879
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, M. J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibshirani, R., & Walther, G. (2005). Cluster validation by prediction strength. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 14, 511–528. doi:10.1198/106186005X59243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, A. F., Zhao, Y., Hausknecht, S. N., & Chui, M. M. (2013). Temporal considerations in analyzing and designing for online discussions in education: Examining duration, sequence, pace and salience. In E. Barbera & P. Reimann (Eds.), Assessment and evaluation of time factors in online teaching and learning (pp. 198–231). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, K. U. I., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 67–89. doi:10.2190/7BAK-EGAH-3MH1-K7C6
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xing, W., Guo, R., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2015). Participation-based student final performance prediction model through interpretable genetic programming: Integrating learning analytics, educational data mining and theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 168–181. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., & Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural equation modeling approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23–33. Retrieved from http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/index
   Google Scholar
• Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013, December). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the NIPS data-driven education workshop, Lake Tahoe, NV. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~diyiy/docs/nips13.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2014). What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In Proceedings of 2014 IEEE, 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 44–48). Athens, Greece: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2014.23
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., Skryabin, M., & Song, X. (2016). Understanding the dynamics of MOOC discussion forums with simulation investigation for empirical network analysis (SIENA). Distance Education, 37, 270–286. doi:10.1080/01587919.2016.1226230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, M., Bergner, Y., Zhang, Y., Baker, R., Wang, Y., & Paquette, L. (2016). Longitudinal engagement, performance, and social connectivity: A MOOC case study using exponential random graph models. In LAK ‘16, Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 223–230). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2883851.2883934
   Google Scholar