Dataset Information

Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning.

ABSTRACT: In this study, we examined students' natural studying behaviors in massive, open, online course (MOOC) on introductory psychology. We found that, overall, distributing study across multiple sessions-increasing spacing-was related to increased performance on end-of-unit quizzes, even when comparing the same student across different time-points in the course. Moreover, we found important variation on who is more likely to engage in spaced study and benefit from it. Students with higher ability and students who were more likely to complete course activities were more likely to space their study. Spacing benefits, however, were largest for the lower-ability students and for those students who were less likely to complete activities. These results suggest that spaced study might work as a buffer, improving performance for low ability students and those who do not engage in active practices. This study highlights the positive impact of spacing in real-world learning situations, but more importantly, the role of self-regulated learning decisions in shaping the impact of spaced practice.

SUBMITTER: Carvalho PF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7076029 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning.

Carvalho Paulo F PF Sana Faria F Yan Veronica X VX

NPJ science of learning 20200316

In this study, we examined students' natural studying behaviors in massive, open, online course (MOOC) on introductory psychology. We found that, overall, distributing study across multiple sessions-increasing spacing-was related to increased performance on end-of-unit quizzes, even when comparing the same student across different time-points in the course. Moreover, we found important variation on who is more likely to engage in spaced study and benefit from it. Students with higher ability and ...[more]

PMID: 32194982

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical training during the COVID-19 pandemic is high risk for medical students. Medical schools in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have limited capacity to develop resources in the face of rapidly developing health emergencies. Here, a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) was developed as a COVID-19 resource for medical students working in these settings, and its effectiveness was evaluated.MethodsThe RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework was utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of MOOC in teaching medical students about COVID-19. The data sources included the student registration forms, metrics quantifying their interactions within the modules, students' course feedback, and free-text responses. The data were collected from the Moodle learning management system and Google analytics from May 9 to September 15, 2020. The research team analyzed the quantitative data descriptively and the qualitative data thematically.ResultsAmong the 16,237 unique visitors who accessed the course, only 6031 medical students from 71 medical schools registered, and about 4993 (83% of registrants) completed the course, indicating high levels of satisfaction (M = 8.17, SD = 1.49) on a 10-point scale. The mean scores of each assessment modules were > 90%. The free-text responses from 987 unique students revealed a total of 17 themes (e.g., knowing the general information on COVID-19, process management of the pandemic in public health, online platform use, and instructional design) across the elements of the RE-AIM framework. Mainly, the students characterized the MOOC as well-organized and effective.ConclusionsMedical students learned about COVID-19 using a self-paced and unmonitored MOOC. MOOCs could play a vital role in the dissemination of accurate information to medical students in LMIC in future public health emergencies. The students were interested in using similar MOOCs in the future.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have the potential to make a broader educational impact because many learners undertake these courses. Despite their reach, there is a lack of knowledge about which methods are used for evaluating these courses. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to identify current MOOC evaluation methods to inform future study designs. METHODS:We systematically searched the following databases for studies published from January 2008 to October 2018: (1) Scopus, (2) Education Resources Information Center, (3) IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Xplore, (4) PubMed, (5) Web of Science, (6) British Education Index, and (7) Google Scholar search engine. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and titles of the studies. Published studies in the English language that evaluated MOOCs were included. The study design of the evaluations, the underlying motivation for the evaluation studies, data collection, and data analysis methods were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool for cohort observational studies and for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group. RESULTS:The initial search resulted in 3275 studies, and 33 eligible studies were included in this review. In total, 16 studies used a quantitative study design, 11 used a qualitative design, and 6 used a mixed methods study design. In all, 16 studies evaluated learner characteristics and behavior, and 20 studies evaluated learning outcomes and experiences. A total of 12 studies used 1 data source, 11 used 2 data sources, 7 used 3 data sources, 4 used 2 data sources, and 1 used 5 data sources. Overall, 3 studies used more than 3 data sources in their evaluation. In terms of the data analysis methods, quantitative methods were most prominent with descriptive and inferential statistics, which were the top 2 preferred methods. In all, 26 studies with a cross-sectional design had a low-quality assessment, whereas RCTs and quasi-experimental studies received a high-quality assessment. CONCLUSIONS:The MOOC evaluation data collection and data analysis methods should be determined carefully on the basis of the aim of the evaluation. The MOOC evaluations are subject to bias, which could be reduced using pre-MOOC measures for comparison or by controlling for confounding variables. Future MOOC evaluations should consider using more diverse data sources and data analysis methods. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.2196/12087.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The educational technology of massive open online courses (MOOCs) has been successfully applied in a wide variety of disciplines and are an intense focus of educational research at this time. Educators are now looking to MOOC technology as a means to improve professional medical education, but very little is known about how medical MOOCs compare with traditional content delivery. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of the course evaluations for the Medicine as a Business elective by fourth-year medical students at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine (SIU-SOM) for the 2012-2015 academic years was conducted. This course was delivered by small group flipped classroom discussions for 2012-2014 and delivered via MOOC technology in 2015. Learner ratings were compared between the two course delivery methods using routinely collected course evaluations. RESULTS:Course enrollment has ranged from 6-19 students per year in the 2012-2015 academic years. Student evaluations of the course are favorable in the areas of effective teaching, accurate course objectives, meeting personal learning objectives, recommending the course to other students, and overall when rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The majority of all student ratings (76-95%) of this elective course are for the highest possible choice (Strongly agree or Excellent) for any criteria, regardless if the course was delivered via a traditional or MOOC format. Statistical analysis of these ratings suggests that the Effective Teacher and Overall Evaluations did not statistically differ between the two delivery formats. DISCUSSION:Student ratings of this elective course were highly similar when delivered in a flipped classroom format or by using MOOC technology. The primary advantage of this new course format is flexibility of time and place for learners, allowing them to complete the course objectives when convenient for them. The course evaluations suggest this is a change that is acceptable to the target audience. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that learner evaluations of a fourth-year medical school elective course do not significantly differ when delivered by flipped classroom group discussions or via MOOC technology in a very small single center observational study. Further investigation is required to determine if this delivery method is an acceptable and effective means of teaching in the medical school environment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The digital revolution has led to a boom in the number of available online health care resources. To navigate these resources successfully, digital literacy education is required. Learners who can evaluate the reliability and validity of online health care information are likely to be more effective at avoiding potentially dangerous misinformation. In addition to providing health care education, massive open online courses (MOOCs) are well positioned to play a role in providing digital literacy education in this context. OBJECTIVE:This study focused on learners enrolled in a MOOC on cancer genomics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a series of digital literacy-related activities within this course. This was an iterative study, with changes made to digital literacy-related activities in 4 of the 8 runs of the course. METHODS:This mixed methods study focused on learner engagement with the digital literacy-related activities, including the final course written assignment. Quantitative data including the number of references listed in each written assignment were compared between successive runs. Qualitative data in the form of learner comments on discussion forums for digital literacy-related tasks were evaluated to determine the impact of these educational activities. RESULTS:Using the number of references included for each final course assignment as an indicator of digital literacy skills, the digital literacy-related activities in the final 2 runs were judged to be the most successful. We found a statistically significant increase in the number of references cited by learners in their final written assignments. The average number of references cited in Run 8 was significantly higher (3.5) than in Run 1 (1.8) of the MOOC (P=.001). Learner comments in Runs 7 and 8 showed that a poll in which learners were asked to select which of 4 online resources was reliable was effective in stimulating learner discussion about how to evaluate resource reliability. CONCLUSIONS:Similar to many health care MOOCs, the course studied here had a heterogeneous group of learners, including patients (and their families), the public, health care students, and practitioners. Carefully designing a range of digital literacy-related activities that would be beneficial to this heterogenous group of learners enabled learners to become more effective at evaluating and citing appropriate online resources within their written assignments.

Dataset Information

Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning.

Publications

Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets