BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Anna Rafferty

Anna Rafferty appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
cs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learning

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

How can Email Interventions Increase Students' Completion of Online Homework? A Case Study Using A/B Comparisons

Email communication between instructors and students is ubiquitous, and it could be valuable to explore ways of testing out how to make email messages more impactful. This paper explores the design space of using emails to get students to plan and reflect on starting weekly homework earlier. We deployed a series of email reminders using randomized A/B comparisons to test alternative factors in the design of these emails, providing examples of an experimental paradigm and metrics for a broader range of interventions. We also surveyed and interviewed instructors and students to compare their predictions about the effectiveness of the reminders with their actual impact. We present our results on which seemingly obvious predictions about effective emails are not borne out, despite there being evidence for further exploring these interventions, as they can sometimes motivate students to attempt their homework more often. We also present qualitative evidence about student opinions and behaviours after receiving the emails, to guide further interventions. These findings provide insight into how to use randomized A/B comparisons in everyday channels such as emails, to provide empirical evidence to test our beliefs about the effectiveness of alternative design choices.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Increasing Students' Engagement to Reminder Emails Through Multi-Armed Bandits

Conducting randomized experiments in education settings raises the question of how we can use machine learning techniques to improve educational interventions. Using Multi-Armed Bandits (MAB) algorithms like Thompson Sampling (TS) in adaptive experiments can increase students' chances of obtaining better outcomes by increasing the probability of assignment to the most optimal condition (arm), even before an intervention completes. This is an advantage over traditional A/B testing, which may allocate an equal number of students to both optimal and non-optimal conditions. The problem is the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Even though adaptive policies aim to collect enough information to allocate more students to better arms reliably, past work shows that this may not be enough exploration to draw reliable conclusions about whether arms differ. Hence, it is of interest to provide additional uniform random (UR) exploration throughout the experiment. This paper shows a real-world adaptive experiment on how students engage with instructors' weekly email reminders to build their time management habits. Our metric of interest is open email rates which tracks the arms represented by different subject lines. These are delivered following different allocation algorithms: UR, TS, and what we identified as TS† - which combines both TS and UR rewards to update its priors. We highlight problems with these adaptive algorithms - such as possible exploitation of an arm when there is no significant difference - and address their causes and consequences. Future directions includes studying situations where the early choice of the optimal arm is not ideal and how adaptive algorithms can address them.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Using Adaptive Experiments to Rapidly Help Students

Adaptive experiments can increase the chance that current students obtain better outcomes from a field experiment of an instructional intervention. In such experiments, the probability of assigning students to conditions changes while more data is being collected, so students can be assigned to interventions that are likely to perform better. Digital educational environments lower the barrier to conducting such adaptive experiments, but they are rarely applied in education. One reason might be that researchers have access to few real-world case studies that illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of these experiments in a specific context. We evaluate the effect of homework email reminders in students by conducting an adaptive experiment using the Thompson Sampling algorithm and compare it to a traditional uniform random experiment. We present this as a case study on how to conduct such experiments, and we raise a range of open questions about the conditions under which adaptive randomized experiments may be more or less useful.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access