Learning Transfer: does it take place?
Guanliang Chen*, Dan Davis*, Claudia Hauff*, Georgios Gousios+ and Geert-Jan Houben*
An Investigation into the Uptake of Functional Programming in Practice
* Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands+ Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
The case for learning transfer
retention
MOOC environment
engagement
learning
…≠
knowledgeapplication in practice
“learning transfer”
Our questionsTo what extent does the transfer of learned conceptstake place?
@flickr:eviloars
What type of learners are most likely to make thetransfer?
How does the transfer manifest itself over time?
Main challenge: data
@flickr:360around
accessible?
large-scale?
relevant?
longitudinal?
WebSocial Web
Beyond the MOOC environment hundreds of
millions of users
most focus on users’ private lifes
professional networks are becoming popular
MOOCenvironment
GitHub
10+ million registered users
hosting, collaboration and organisation
the most popular social coding platform
founded in 2007long-term
large-scale
detailed
detailed logs
code changes
project meta-data
Hypotheses grounded in prior works
@flickr:carbonnyc
H1: Only a small fraction of engaged learners is likely to exhibit learning transfer.
H3: Learners expressing high self-efficacy are more likely to actively apply their trained tasks in new contexts.
H4: Learners exhibiting a high-spacing learning routine are more likely to exhibit learning transfer.
H5: The amount of exhibited transfer decreases over time.
H2: Intrinsically motivated learners with mastery goals are more likely to exhibit transfer than extrinsically motivated learners.
From hypotheses to measurements
FP101xlogs surveys coding
activities++
email@address
Are changes made in a
functional language?
3 months 2.5 years + 0.5 years
FP101x
@flickr:christiaan_008
Course programming language: Haskell
Run as a typical video-lecture based MOOC
Assessment: 288 Multiple Choice questions
Introduction to Functional Programming
37,485 learners registered.41% engaged with the course. 5% completed the course.33% were active on GitHub (1.1M
events).
A sanity check
FP101xbefore FP101x after FP101x
Are “GitHub learners” different?
GitHub learners
Non-GitHub learners
#Learners 12,415 25,070
Completion rate 7.71% 4.03%
Avg. time watching videos 49.1 min 27.7 min
Avg. #questions attempted 31.3 17.5
Avg. accuracy of learners’ answers 23.4% 12.9%
GitHub learners are more engaged than non-GitHub learners and exhibit higher levels of knowledge.
Are “Expert learners” different?
Expert GH learners
Novice GH learners
#Learners 1,721 10,694
Completion rate 15.0% 6.5%
Avg. time watching videos 78.6 min 44.4 min
Avg. #questions attempted 57.9 27.0
Avg. accuracy of learners’ answers 38.0% 21.1%
Expert learners are more engaged than Novice learners and exhibit higher levels of knowledge.
FP101x does not influence the amount of functional coding by our Expert learners.
Do Expert learners change?
What happens to our Novice learners?
Learning transfer occurs at a rate of 8.5%.
Learning transfer does not decrease over time.
Lack of learning transfer mainly due to a lack of opportunities.
Learners are more likely to transfer when …
they are intrinsically motivated.
have high self-efficacy.
are experienced programmers.
Learners who transfer quickly move on
FP101x
Conclusions
Most transfer learning findings from the classroom hold.
The observed transfer rate is low: 8.5%.
Learners quickly moved on after the course to industrially-relevant functional languages.
@flickr:torsten-reuschling