Adams, D. J., Bolt, D. M., Deng, S., Smith, S. S., & Baker, T. B. (2019). Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate how response styles impact measurement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12169.
Article
MATH
Google Scholar
Alexandron, G., Lee, S., Chen, Z., & Pritchard, D. E. (2016). Detecting cheaters in MOOCs using item response theory and learning analytics. In CEUR workshop proceedings, vol. 1618.
Alexandron, G., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Chen, Z., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., & Pritchard, D. E. (2017). Copying@Scale: Using harvesting accounts for collecting correct answers in a MOOC. Computers and Education, 108, 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.015.
Article
Google Scholar
Alexandron, G., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A, & Pritchard, D. E. (2019). Towards a general purpose anomaly detection method to identify cheaters in massive open online courses. In EDM 2019—Proceedings of the 12th international conference on educational data mining (Edm) (pp. 480–483). https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/wuqv5.
Alexandron, G., Wiltrout, M. E., Berg, A., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2020). Assessment that matters: Balancing reliability and learner-centered pedagogy in MOOC assessment. In ACM international conference proceeding series (pp. 512–517). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375464.
Bergner, Y., Colvin, K., & Pritchard, D. E. (2015). Estimation of ability from homework items when there are missing and/or multiple attempts. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 118–125).
Birnbaum, A. L. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In Statistical theories of mental test scores.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2000). The odds ratio. BMJ, 320(7247), 1468.
Article
Google Scholar
Blyth, C. R. (1972). On Simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67(338), 364–366.
Article
MathSciNet
Google Scholar
Central, C. Languages. Retrieved January 25, 2021 from https://www.classcentral.com/languages.
Champaign, J., & Cohen, R. (2013). Ecological content sequencing: From simulated students to an effective user study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 8(4), 337. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijlt.2013.059130.
Article
Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Chudzicki, C., Palumbo, D., Alexandron, G., Choi, Y. J., Zhou, Q., & Pritchard, D. E. (2016). Researching for better instructional methods using AB experiments in MOOCs: Results and challenges. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0034-4.
Article
Google Scholar
Cho, M.-H., & Byun, M. (2017). International review of research in open and distributed learning IRRODL nonnative English-speaking students’ lived learning experiences with MOOCs in a regular college classroom nonnative english-speaking students’ lived learning experiences with MOOCs in a regular college classroom. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2892.
Article
Google Scholar
Chuang, I. (2017). HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses—Fall 2012-Summer 2016. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2889436.
Article
Google Scholar
Colvin, K. F., Champaign, J., Liu, A., Zhou, Q., Fredericks, C., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Learning in an introductory physics mooc: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, 15(4).
Davis, D., Jivet, I., Kizilcec, R. F., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. -J. (2017). Follow the successful crowd: raising MOOC completion rates through social comparison at scale. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 454–463).
De Ayala, R. J., & Santiago, S. Y. (2017). An introduction to mixture item response theory models. Journal of School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.01.002.
Article
Google Scholar
Deboer, J., Seaton, D. T, & Breslow, L. (2013). Diversity in MOOC students ’ backgrounds and behaviors in relationship to performance in 6.002x. In Proceedings of the sixth learning international networks consortium conference (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237092327.
Dillahunt, T., & Wang, Z. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1841.
Article
Google Scholar
Duru, I., Sunar, A. S., White, S., Diri, B., & Dogan, G. (2019). A case study on English as a second language speakers for sustainable MOOC study. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(10), 2808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102808.
Article
Google Scholar
Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs. In Association for computing machinery, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566247.
Haag, N., Heppt, B., Stanat, P., Kuhl, P., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Second language learners’ performance in mathematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction, 28, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.001.
Article
Google Scholar
Iniesto, F. & Rodrigo, C. (2018). Yourmooc4all: A MOOCs inclusive design and useful feedback research project. In 2018 learning with MOOCs (LWMOOCS) (pp. 147–150). https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS.2018.8534644.
Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., et al. (2018). How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 43–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317740335.
Article
Google Scholar
Kizilcec, R. F., & Kambhampaty, A. (2020). Identifying course characteristics associated with sociodemographic variation in enrollments across 159 online courses from 20 institutions. PLoS ONE, 15(10), 0239766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239766.
Article
Google Scholar
Kizilcec, R. F., Saltarelli, A. J., Reich, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science, 355(6322), 251–252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2063.
Article
Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E. A., Kim, J., Jia, J. Z., & Bier, N. L. (2015). Learning is not a spectator sport: Doing is better than watching for learning from a MOOC. In L@S 2015—2nd ACM conference on learning at scale (pp. 111–120). https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724681
Lopez, G., Cambridge, H., Seaton, D.T., Ang, A., Tingley, D., & Chuang, I. (2017). Google BigQuery for education: Framework for parsing and analyzing edX MOOC Data. In Proceedings of the fourth (2017) ACM conference on learning @ scale. ACM, New York, NY, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3053980.
Magis, D., Béland, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.847.
Article
Google Scholar
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719–748.
Google Scholar
Marascuilo, L. A., & Slaughter, R. E. (1981). Statistical procedures for identifying possible sources of item bias based on χ2 statistics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 229–248.
Article
Google Scholar
Martinková, P., Drabinová, A., Liaw, Y. L., Sanders, E. A., McFarland, J. L., & Price, R. M. (2017). Checking equity: Why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307.
Article
Google Scholar
McKenzie, L. Is a shakeout coming for online program management companies? Retrieved January 25, 2021 from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/06/04/shakeout-coming-online-program-management-companies.
Meyer, J. P., & Zhu, S. (2013). Fair and equitable measurement of student learning in MOOCs: An introduction to item response theory, scale linking, and score equating. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 26–39.
Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Y. R., Coleman, C., Williams, J. J., Whitehill, J., Nesterko, S., & Reich, J. (2015). Beyond time-on-task: The relationship between spaced study and certification in MOOCs. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.22.5.
Article
Google Scholar
Morris, N. P., Morris, N. P., Hotchkiss, S., & Swinnerton, B. (2015). Can demographic information predict MOOC learner outcomes? Can demographic information predict MOOC learner outcomes? Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, 2015(MAY) (pp. 199–207).
National Council on Measurement in Education. Assessment glossary. Retrieved January 25, 2021 from https://www.ncme.org/resources/glossary.
Nations, U. Human Development Index (HDI) | Human development reports. Retrieved January 29, 2021 from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi.
Oh, E. G., Chang, Y., & Park, S. W. (2020). Design review of MOOCs: Application of e-learning design principles. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(3), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09243-w.
Article
Google Scholar
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the mooc. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012.
Google Scholar
Rabin, E., Henderikx, M., Kalman, Y. M, & Kalz, M. (2019). The influence of self-regulation, self-efficacy and motivation as predictors of barriers to satisfaction in moocs. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 631–635). Springer.
Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research: Improve assessment, data sharing, and experimental design. Science, 347(6217), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261627.
Article
Google Scholar
Reich, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958.
Article
Google Scholar
Renz, J., Hoffmann, D., Staubitz, T., & Meinel, C. (2016). Using A/B testing in MOOC environments. In ACM international conference proceeding series, vol. 25–29-April-2016 (pp. 304–313). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883876. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2883851.2883876.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Moving from “context matters” to engaged partnerships with families. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(1–2), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2011.649650.
Article
Google Scholar
Rizopoulos, D. (2006). ltm: An r package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1–25.
Article
Google Scholar
Ruiperez-Valiente, J. A., Alexandron, G., Chen, Z, & Pritchard, D. E. (2016). Using multiple accounts for harvesting solutions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on learning@ scale (pp. 63–70).
Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Jenner, M., Staubitz, T., Li, X., Rohloff, T., Halawa, S., Turro, C., Cheng, Y., Zhang, J., Zabala, I. D., Reich, J., Despujol, I., & Reich, J. (2020). Macro MOOC learning analytics: Exploring trends across global and regional providers. In ACM international conference proceeding series (December) (pp. 518–523). https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/9ghfc.
Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course? Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2500876.
Article
Google Scholar
Shah, D. MOOCs 2017: A year in review by class central. Retrieved January 25, 2021 from https://www.classcentral.com/moocs-year-in-review-2017.
Shavitt, Y., & Zilberman, N. (2011). A geolocation databases study. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29(10), 2044–2056. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2011.111214.
Article
Google Scholar
The University of Sheffield. List of majority native English speaking countries | International students. Retrieved February 02, 2021 from https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/international/english-speaking-countries.
Türkay, S., Seaton, D., Eidelman, H., Lopez, G., Rosen, Y., & Whitehill, J. (2017). Getting to know English language learners in MOOCs: Their motivations, behaviors and outcomes. In L@S 2017—Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on learning at scale (pp. 209–212). https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3053987.
Uchidiuno, J., Koedinger, K., Hammer, J., Yarzebinski, E., & Ogan, A. (2018a). How do English language learners interact with different content types in MOOC videos? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(4), 508–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0156-x.
Article
Google Scholar
Uchidiuno, J. O., Ogan, A., Yarzebinski, E., & Hammer, J. (2018b). Going global: Understanding English language learners’ student motivation in English-language MOOCs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(4), 528–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0159-7.
Article
Google Scholar
United Nations, D.o.E., Affairs, S. Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Retrieved May 01, 2020 from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4.
Zee, T. V. D., Admiraal, W., Paas, F., Saab, N., & Giesbers, B. (2017). Effects of subtitles, complexity, and language proficiency on learning from online education videos. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000208.
Article
Google Scholar
Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D, & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s benefiting from MOOCs, and why. Retrieved January 25, 2021 from https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why.