IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v40y2021i6p565-577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foreseeing the endgame: who are the students who take the final exam at the beginning of a MOOC?

Author

Listed:
  • Chen Chen
  • Gerhard Sonnert
  • Philip M. Sadler
  • David J. Malan

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) show highly irregular participation behaviour among users. In this study, using data from Computer Science 50x of HarvardX, we investigated one extreme, yet common strategy to foresee the endgame: taking the final problem set at the beginning of the course. We found such a strategy to be the only dominant trajectory alternative to following the sequence prescribed by the syllabus. Whereas all students who took and passed the final problem set at the beginning of the course subsequently completed the course, those who took and failed the final problem set at the beginning of the course finished the fewest number of milestones, even fewer than those who never attempted the final problem set. Moreover, students with a lower prior programming proficiency were more likely than better prepared students both to take the final problem set early and to fail it. This study revealed the disconcerting phenomenon that many students dropped out of a MOOC because, apparently, their confidence was crushed even before they learned any course content. The study suggests that future MOOC practices and policies should offer informative and constructive syllabi to accommodate students' need for previewing the endgame.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen Chen & Gerhard Sonnert & Philip M. Sadler & David J. Malan, 2021. "Foreseeing the endgame: who are the students who take the final exam at the beginning of a MOOC?," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 565-577, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:40:y:2021:i:6:p:565-577
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1711452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1711452
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1711452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:40:y:2021:i:6:p:565-577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.