Cited by 10Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingOnline Learning and AnalyticsEducational Games and Gamification

Can crowdsourcing platforms be useful for educational research?

Open access
Wang, Karen D., Chen, Zhongzhou, Wieman, Carl·2024·Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference

Abstract

A growing number of social science researchers, including educational researchers, have turned to online crowdsourcing platforms such as Prolific and MTurk for their experiments. However, there is a lack of research investigating the quality of data generated by online subjects and how they compare with traditional subject pools of college students in studies that involve cognitively demanding tasks. Using an interactive problem-solving task embedded in an educational simulation, we compare the task engagement and performance based on the interaction log data of college students recruited from Prolific to those from an introductory physics course. Results show that Prolific participants performed on par with participants from the physics class in obtaining the correct solutions. Furthermore, the physics course students who submitted incorrect answers were more likely than Prolific participants to make rushed cursory attempts to solve the problem. These results suggest that with thoughtful study design and advanced learning analytics and data mining techniques, crowdsourcing platforms can be a viable tool for conducting research on teaching and learning in higher education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3636555.3636897

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Prolific participants outperform MTurk participants in educational problem-solving tasks that require sustained effort and deliberate engagement.

    “They also outperform MTurk participants in educational problem-solving tasks that require sustained effort and deliberate engagement (Wang et al., 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, K. D., Chen, Z., & Wieman, C.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-03-18
Pages
416-425
OpenAlex
W4392484199
Cited by
9
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
3.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
NSF (DUE-1845436)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
Keywords
crowdsourcing platforms, Prolific, Amazon Mechanical Turk, data quality, task engagement, problem-solving performance, educational simulation, interaction logs, learning analytics, university students, physics education, participant recruitment

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