# A Domain-Driven Framework to Analyze Learning Dynamics in MOOCs through Event Abstraction
## 5 Case Study: Successful Student Sessions in Coursera
### Case Study & Framework
Furthermore, Coursera records progress through each question within an assessment as if it were a new event; for example, a student finishing an evaluation with 10 questions results in 11 events started and 1 completed. This duplication was later reduced, yielding a low-level event log of 39,650 events, 209 users for study, and a total of 7087 sessions. Each event at this stage is made up of seven attributes, as exemplified in Table 1 : the user performing the event, the resource viewed, the timestamp of when this interaction occurs, the order of the resource in the progression (which is used to determine if the progression is sequential or chaotic), the type of the resource (to determine if it is a lecture or assessment), the state of the interaction (started or completed), and the session identifier to determine in which session this interaction occurs. As a final step in applying the framework, we build the high-level event log by consolidating sequences of events into each of the seven high-level learning dynamics, using the criteria depicted in Figure 5. The resulting event log contained 18,029 events. When compared to the low-level log, this showed a 54.5% reduction in activities. The case ID for the high-level event log was established in the same way as it was for the low-level log (user ID, session ID). From the 7087 sessions and 209 users this yielded 1237 process variants. It should be noted that the five most common cases were associated with single activity sessions and accounted for 51.3% of all cases, with Skimming accounting for 26.7% of all cases. RQ1: What Are the Characteristics of the Sessions That Involve Learning Dynamics in Which a Resource Is Revisited? Our study discovered variations in learning dynamics when a resource is revisited, namely Echoing, Fetching, and Retaking. An exploratory analysis of the sessions using the Disco software revealed that Fetching appears in 13% of the cases, and that this activity appears to be significantly tied to the dynamics associated with assessment (i.e., Assessing, Skimming, Retaking); In 54.3% of cases when this action appears, it is preceded by one of the assessment-related activities; and in 50.9% of cases, Fetching is followed by some type of assessment. Figure 6 depicts the process map of the fetching-related sessions. In this scenario, the Fetching of a content implies a specific search-related activity, either in preparation for an assessment or in reaction to a specific element that surfaced in an assessment and about which a specific doubt should be clarified. However, when the sessions included an Assessing or Retaking activity in addition to Fetching, the proportion shifted, with 25.6% executing the Fetching dynamic prior to the evaluation and 21.5% afterwards. An examination of the material associated with Fetching revealed that the most frequently fetched resources were _2.2.2 Input_, _3.1.1 If/Else_, _3.2.2 For_, _2.1.1. Data Types_ (which makes sense because they are the basic building blocks required to create programs), and _6.1.4 List Functions_. In sessions where the Echoing dynamic appears, students' behavior shifts. As illustrated in Figure 7, in most cases, this activity is related to Progressing, to the point that it is the activity that precedes or follows Echoing in 35.9% of the cases. This demonstrates that the student was oriented towards learning, and that questions developed during these study sessions, necessitating an in-depth examination of previously studied subjects. This is in stark contrast to Fetching sessions, which appear to be more directly tied to evaluative activities. In addition, there was also a link with the assessment dynamics in Echoing sessions. However, they differed in the order in which they appeared. This is because content repetition happened more frequently before the assessment as compared to the versions that contained Fetching. In contrast, content review took place more frequently after the assessment dynamic occurred.