skip to main content
10.1145/3573051.3593380acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring Cross-Country Prediction Model Generalizability in MOOCs

Published:20 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

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.

References

  1. Adamopoulos, P. 2013. What Makes a Great MOOC? An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Student Retention in Online Courses. Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems. 2013, (2013), 1--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1164394.1164397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alamri, A. et al. 2021. MOOC next week dropout prediction: weekly assessing time and learning patterns. Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 17th International Conference, ITS 2021, Virtual Event, June 7--11, 2021, Proceedings 17 (2021), 119--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Andres, J.M.L. et al. 2017. Replicating 21 findings on student success in online learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning. 10, 4 (2017), 313--333.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, R. et al. 2022. Research Using the MOOC Replication Framework and E-TRIALS. 2022 IEEE Learning with MOOCS (LWMOOCS) (2022), 131--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, R.S. et al. Culture in Computer-Based Learning Systems: Challenges and Opportunities. Computer-Based Learning In Context. 1, 1, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 57, 1 (1995), 289--300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2346101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinton, C.G. and Chiang, M. 2015. MOOC performance prediction via clickstream data and social learning networks. Proceedings - IEEE INFOCOM. 26, (2015), 2299--2307. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2015.7218617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, C. et al. 2015. Who you are or what you do: Comparing the predictive power of demographics vs. activity patterns in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (2015), 245--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (2018), 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Crossley, S. et al. 2017. Predicting success in massive open online courses (MOOCs) using cohesion network analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2017), 103--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, O.J. 1961. Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American statistical association. 56, 293 (1961), 52--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Fogarty, J. et al. 2005. Case studies in the use of ROC curve analysis for sensor-based estimates in human computer interaction. Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2005 (2005), 129--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gardner, J. et al. 2018. Replicating MOOC predictive models at scale. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (2018), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Guo, P.J. and Reinecke, K. 2014. Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (2014), 21--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Helliwell, J.F. et al. eds. 2015. World Happiness Report 2015. Development Solutions Network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Henrich, J. et al. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (2010). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of intercultural relations. 10, 3 (1986), 301--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hofstede, G. et al. 2010. Culture and organizations: software of the mind, intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. House, R.J. et al. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutt, S. et al. 2022. Controlled outputs, full data: A privacy-protecting infrastructure for MOOC data. British Journal of Educational Technology. 53, 4 (2022), 756--775. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jordan, K. 2014. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 15, 1 (2014), 133--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Kizilcec, R.F. et al. 2013. Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (2013), 170--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kizilcec, R.F. and Cohen, G.L. 2017. Eight-minute self-regulation intervention raises educational attainment at scale in individualist but not collectivist cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114, 17 (2017), 4348--4353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kulik, J.A. and Fletcher, J.D. 2016. Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of Educational Research. (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Lan, X. et al. 2019. Parental autonomy support and psychological well-being in Tibetan and Han emerging adults: A serial multiple mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology. 10, (2019), 621.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Le, C.V. et al. 2018. Communication at scale in a MOOC using predictive engagement analytics. Artificial Intelligence in Education: 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, June 27--30, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 19 (2018), 239--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Li, X. et al. 2021. On the limits of algorithmic prediction across the globe. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15212. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, Z. et al. 2016. MOOC Learner Behaviors by Country and Culture; an Exploratory Analysis. International Educational Data Mining Society (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, R.L. and Wang, C. 2021. Influence of learner motivational dispositions on MOOC completion. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 33, 1 (2021), 121--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ogan, A. et al. 2015. Towards understanding how to assess help-seeking behavior across cultures. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 25, (2015), 229--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. San Pedro, M.O.C.Z. et al. 2011. Detecting carelessness through contextual estimation of slip probabilities among students using an intelligent tutor for mathematics. Artificial Intelligence in Education (2011), 304--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Shah, Dhawal 2019. Online Degrees Slowdown: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2019. Class Central.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Sndergaard, M. 1994. Hofstedes Consequences: A Study of Reviews. Citations and. (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Soares, A.M. et al. 2007. Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of business research. 60, 3 (2007), 277--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Steenkamp, J.-B.E. 2001. The role of national culture in international marketing research. International marketing review. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. 2011. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Nicholas Brealey International.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Trumbore, A. 2021. Learner behavior and career benefits in business massive open online courses. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2021. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Veeramachaneni, K. et al. 2013. Moocdb: Developing data standards for mooc data science. AIED 2013 workshops proceedings volume (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, Y. and Baker, R. 2018. Grit and intention: Why do learners complete MOOCs? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 19, 3 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Exploring Cross-Country Prediction Model Generalizability in MOOCs

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          L@S '23: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
          July 2023
          445 pages
          ISBN:9798400700255
          DOI:10.1145/3573051

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 July 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate117of440submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader