Does Social Interaction Improve Learning Outcomes? Evidence from Field Experiments on Massive Open Online Courses

References

• Aksin Z, Ata B, Emadi SM, Su CL (2013) Structural estimation of callers’ delay sensitivity in call centers. Management Sci. 59(12):2727–2746.Link, Google Scholar
• Allon G, Bassamboo A, Gurvich I (2011) We will be right with you: Managing customer expectations with vague promises and cheap talk. Oper. Res. 59(6):1382–1394.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson A, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Leskovec J (2014) Engaging with massive online courses. Broder A, Shim K, Suel T, eds. Proc. 23rd Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (ACM, New York), 687–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist J, Imbens G (1994) Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62(2):467–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE (2000) Subgroup analysis and other (mis) uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 355(9209):1064–1069.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breslow L, Pritchard DE, DeBoer J, Stump GS, Ho AD, Seaton DT (2013) Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Res. Practice Assessment 8(1):13–25.Google Scholar
• Burke MA, Sass TR (2013) Classroom peer effects and student achievement. J. Labor Econom. 31(1):51–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calvó-Armengol A, Patacchini E, Zenou Y (2009) Peer effects and social networks in education. Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(4):1239–1267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Candogan O, Bimpikis K, Ozdaglar A (2012) Optimal pricing in networks with externalities. Oper. Res. 60(4):883–905.Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen G, Steinmetz A, Alcorn B, Bennett A, Woods D, Emanuel EJ (2013) The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Coursera (2015) Community—Coursera. Accessed June 8, 2005, https://www.coursera.org/about/community.Google Scholar
• Duflo E, Glennerster R, Kremer M (2007) Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. Schultz TP, Strauss J, eds. Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 4 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 3895–3962.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epple D, Romano RE (1998) Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(1):33–62.Google Scholar
• Falk A, Ichino A (2006) Clean evidence on peer effects. J. Labor Econom. 24(1):39–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fruehwirth JC (2014) Can achievement peer effect estimates inform policy? A view from inside the black box. Rev. Econom. Statist. 96(3):514–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoxby C (2000) Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoxby CM, Weingarth G (2005) Taking race out of the equation: School reassignment and the structure of peer effects. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Imberman SA, Kugler AD, Sacerdote BI (2012) Katrina’s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane evacuees. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2048–2082.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jing B (2011) Social learning and dynamic pricing of durable goods. Marketing Sci. 30(5):851–865.Link, Google Scholar
• Koller D, Ng A, Do C, Chen Z (2013) Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. Educause Rev. 48(3):62–63.Google Scholar
• Lamb A, Smilack J, Ho A, Reich J (2015) Addressing common analytic challenges to randomized experiments in MOOCS: Attrition and zero-inflation. Russell DM, Woolf B, eds. Proc. Second ACM Conf. Learning @ Scale (ACM, New York), 21–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavy V, Schlosser A (2011) Mechanisms and impacts of gender peer effects at school. Amer. Econom. J.: Appl. Econom. 3(2):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyle DS (2007) Estimating and interpreting peer and role model effects from randomly assigned social groups at West Point. Rev. Econom. Statist. 89(2):289–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Naor P (1969) The regulation of queue size by levying tolls. Econometrica 37(1):15–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papanastasiou Y, Savva N (2017) Dynamic pricing in the presence of social learning and strategic consumers. Management Sci. 63(4):919–939.Link, Google Scholar
• Rothwell PM (2005) Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: Importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 365(9454):176–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sacerdote B (2001) Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quart. J. Econom. 116(2):681–704.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2014) Will video kill the classroom star? The threat and opportunity of massively open on-line courses for full-time MBA programs. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Veeraraghavan SK, Debo LG (2011) Herding in queues with waiting costs: Rationality and regret. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 13(3):329–346.Link, Google Scholar
• Yu Q, Allon G, Bassamboo A (2017) How do delay announcements shape customer behavior? An empirical study. Management Sci. 63(1):1–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149(3681):269–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimmerman DJ (2003) Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85(1):9–23.Crossref, Google Scholar