In an article published in an open-access journal, (Pennebaker et al. PLoS One, 8(11), e79774, 2013) reported that an innovative computer-based system that included daily online testing resulted in better student performance in other concurrent courses and a reduction in achievement gaps between lower and upper middle-class students. This article has had high impact, not only in terms of citations, but it also launched a multimillion-dollar university project and numerous synchronous massive online courses (SMOCs). In this study, I present a closer look at the data used in the Pennebaker et al. study. As in many cases of false claims, threats to internal validity were not adequately addressed. Student performance increases in other courses can be explained entirely by selection bias, whereas achievement gap reductions may be explained by differential attrition. It is hoped that the findings reported in this paper will inform future decisions regarding SMOC courses. More importantly, our field needs watchdogs who expose such unsupported extravagant claims—especially those appearing in pay-to-publish journals.

在一篇发表在开放获取期刊上的文章中，（Pennebaker et al. PLoS One, 8(11), e79774, 2013) 报告说，包括每日在线测试在内的基于计算机的创新系统可以提高学生在其他并行课程中的表现，并缩小中低年级学生和高年级学生之间的成绩差距。这篇文章的影响力很大，不仅在引用方面，而且还启动了一个价值数百万美元的大学项目和众多同步的大规模在线课程（SMOC）。在这项研究中，我仔细研究了 Pennebaker 等人使用的数据。学习。与许多虚假声明的情况一样，对内部有效性的威胁没有得到充分解决。其他课程中学生成绩的提高完全可以用选择偏差来解释，而成绩差距的缩小可以用不同的自然减员来解释。希望本文报告的研究结果能够为未来有关 SMOC 课程的决策提供参考。更重要的是，我们的领域需要监督机构来揭露这种不受支持的奢侈言论——尤其是那些出现在付费出版期刊中的言论。