Cited by 38Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningOnline Learning and AnalyticsOnline and Blended Learning

The effects of adaptive learning in a massive open online course on learners' skill development

Rosen, Yigal, Rushkin, Ilia, Rubin, Rob, Munson, Liberty, Ang, Andrew, Weber, Gregory, Lopez, Glenn, Tingley, Dustin·2018·Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale

Abstract

We report an experimental implementation of adaptive learning functionality in a self-paced Microsoft MOOC (massive open online course) on edX. In a personalized adaptive system, the learner's progress toward clearly defined goals is continually assessed, the assessment occurs when a student is ready to demonstrate competency, and supporting materials are tailored to the needs of each learner. Despite the promise of adaptive personalized learning, there is a lack of evidence-based instructional design, transparency in many of the models and algorithms used to provide adaptive technology or a framework for rapid experimentation with different models. ALOSI (Adaptive Learning Open Source Initiative) provides open source adaptive learning technology and a common framework to measure learning gains and learner behavior. This study explored the effects of two different strategies for adaptive learning and assessment: Learners were randomly assigned to three groups. In the first adaptive group ALOSI prioritized a strategy of remediation - serving learners items on topics with the least evidence of mastery; in the second adaptive group ALOSI prioritized a strategy of continuity - that is learners would be more likely served items on similar topic in a sequence until mastery is demonstrated. The control group followed the pathways of the course as set out by the instructional designer, with no adaptive algorithms. We found that the implemented adaptivity in assessment, with emphasis on remediation is associated with a substantial increase in learning gains, while producing no big effect on the drop-out. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore additional possible effects and implications to course design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3231644.3231651

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosen, Y., Rushkin, I., Rubin, R., Munson, L., Ang, A., Weber, G., Lopez, G., & Tingley, D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Independent
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-06-26
Pages
1-8
OpenAlex
W2808942252
Cited by
38
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
adaptive learning, massive open online courses, personalized learning, remediation, continuity, adaptive testing, skill development, learning gains, dropout, competency-based assessment, instructional design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review