Fake learners attempted a smaller proportion of assessment items than true learners, with the smallest gap on homework items.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Fake learners tried fewer assessment items than true learners (Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.05), with the smallest difference on homework items. → Alexandron 2019
Evidence¶
Alexandron 2019¶
Alexandron, G., Yoo, L. Y., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Lee, S., & Pritchard, D. E. (2019). Are MOOC Learning Analytics Results Trustworthy? With Fake Learners, They Might Not Be! International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29, 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-019-00183-1
q3 · i? · associational · r1
The same 8.MReVx cohort comparison of item-attempt proportions found "fake learners trying less items" (p < 0.05). Medians: checkpoints 0.69 vs 0.75, quizzes 0.58 vs 0.64, homework 0.47 vs 0.48. The article notes the homework gap is smallest because homework combines high weight with a 'show answer' feature.
"there is a clear difference between the groups, with fake learners trying less items. This is confirmed with a two-sided Mann-Whitney U test (nfake = 72, ntrue = 406, p.value < 0.05)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Fake learners spent significantly less time on each type of instructional resource than true learners in the MITx 8.MReVx MOOC. — related
- Fake learners solved exercises significantly faster than true learners and showed higher weekly improvement, but did not differ significantly on grade, ability, or CFA. — related
- In the Champaign et al. replication, removing fake learners moved three correlations (Ability vs. Homework Time, Ability vs. Reading Time, Weekly Improvement vs. Homework Time) in the positive direction, but no correlation changed qualitatively. — related
- A simulated doubling of fake learners (from ~15% to ~26%) significantly increased the bias in Analysis 1A, making 'Doers who are neither Watchers nor Readers' by far the most successful group.
- Removing fake learners changed the Tetrad causal graph: the links watching → quizScore and reading → IRT disappeared.
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
fake-learners-attempt-fewer-items |
title |
Fake learners attempted a smaller proportion of assessment items than true learners, with the smallest gap on homework items. |
description |
Fake learners attempted a smaller proportion of assessment items than true learners, with the smallest gap on homework items. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — alexandron-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.