Fake learners solved exercises significantly faster than true learners and showed higher weekly improvement, but did not differ significantly on grade, ability, or CFA.¶
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' median time-on-task was 97 vs 150 seconds (p < 0.001) and they showed higher weekly improvement; grade, ability, and CFA did not differ significantly. → 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
In the 8.MReVx behavioral comparison, "Fake learners are significantly faster than true learners" (median 97 vs 150 seconds, p < 0.001) and showed higher weekly improvement. On grade, ability, and CFA the article reports no significant difference (p > 0.05).
"Fake learners are significantly faster than true learners (median time-on-task is 97 vs. 150 seconds, respectively; p − value < 0.001). Another measure on which they are better than true learners is weekly improvement."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Fake learners attempted a smaller proportion of assessment items than true learners, with the smallest gap on homework items. — related
- Fake learners spent significantly less time on each type of instructional resource than true learners in the MITx 8.MReVx MOOC. — 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-faster-and-higher-weekly-improvement |
title |
Fake learners solved exercises significantly faster than true learners and showed higher weekly improvement, but did not differ significantly on grade, ability, or CFA. |
description |
Fake learners solved exercises significantly faster than true learners and showed higher weekly improvement, but did not differ significantly on grade, ability, or CFA. |
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.