Examination of relationships among students' self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs

Computers and Education

Volumn 122, Issue , 2018, Pages 260-272

  Joo, Young Ju ^a   So, Hyo Jeong ^a   Kim, Nam Hee ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

K MOOC; Motivation; Self determination; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

MOTIVATION; STUDENTS;

CONTINUANCE INTENTIONS; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; PERCEIVED EASE OF USE; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; SELF-DETERMINATION; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; STUDENTS' SATISFACTION; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE;

EDUCATION COMPUTING;

EID: 85040591120     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P., Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education 80 (2015), 28–38.
2. Anderson, T., Promise and/or peril: MOOCs and open and distance education. 2013, Commonwealth of learning.
3. Barba, P.D., Kennedy, G.E., Ainley, M.D., The role of students' motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC Motivation and participation in MOOCs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 32 (2016), 218–231.
4. Belanger, Y., Thornton, J., Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach Duke University's first MOOC. 2013.
5. Bhattacherjee, A., Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 25:3 (2001), 351–370.
6. Breslow, L.B., Pritchard, D.E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G.S., Ho, A.D., Seaton, D.T., Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment 8 (2013), 13–25.
7. Burton, K.D., Lydon, J.E., D'Alessandro, D.U., Koestner, R., The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:4 (2006), 750–762.
8. Chamberlin, L., Parish, T., MOOCs: Massive open online courses or massive and often obtuse courses?. eLearn, 2011(8), 2011, 1.
9. Chiu, C.M., Wang, E.T., Understanding Web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Information & Management 45:3 (2008), 194–201.
10. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., Emanuel, E.J., The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why?. 2013 Retrieved on September 24, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350964.
11. Clow, D., MOOCs and the funnel of participation. Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge, 2013, April, ACM, 185–189.
12. Daniel, J., Cano, E.V., Cervera, M.G., The future of MOOCs: Adaptive learning or business model?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 12:1 (2015), 64–73.
13. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:3 (1989), 319–340.
14. Del Barrio-García, S., Arquero, J.L., Romero-Frías, E., Personal learning environments acceptance model: The role of need for cognition, e-Learning satisfaction and students' perceptions. Educational Technology & Society 18:3 (2015), 129–141.
15. Dennis, M., The impact of MOOCs on higher education. College & University, 88(2), 2012, 24.
16. Haider, T., A comprehensive list of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) Providers. 2013 Retrieved on September 24, 2015 from: http://www.technoduet.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-mooc-massive-open-online-courses-providers/.
17. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed., 2006, Pearson Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River, N.J.
18. Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S., Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review 12 (2014), 45–58.
19. Huang, L., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management 37:2 (2017), 84–91.
20. Jacobs, A.J., Two cheers for Web U!. New York Times 162:56113 (2013), 1–7.
21. Jeong, J.S., Lee, J.H., Path analysis among perceived autonomy support, self-determination motivation and academic performance in a cyber university. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media 18:3 (2012), 365–387.
22. Jordan, K., Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 15:1 (2014), 133–169.
23. King, W.R., He, J., A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 43:6 (2006), 740–755.
24. Kishton, J.M., Widaman, K.F., Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: an empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54:3 (1994), 757–765.
25. Kline, R.B., Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed., 2005, The Guilford Press, New York.
26. Kolowich, S., Why professors at San Jos? State won't use a Harvard professor's MOOC. 2013, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
27. Lin, T.C., Chen, C.J., Validating the satisfaction and continuance intention of e-learning systems: Combining TAM and IS success models. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies 10:1 (2012), 44–54.
28. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., Mustain, P., Learning in MOOCs, motivation and self-regulated learning. Internet and Higher Education 29 (2016), 40–48.
29. Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Parslow, P., Williams, S., Dropout: MOOC participants' perspective. Cress, U., Kloos, C.D., (eds.) EMOOCs 2014-proceedings of the European MOOC stakeholder summit 2014, 2014, 95–100.
30. Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., Why study on a MOOC? The motives of students and professionals. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 18:2 (2017), 93–102.
31. Nikou, S.A., Economides, A.A., Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017), 83–95.
32. Park, B.G., Lee, J.W., Hong, S.P., Reconstructing the classificatory pattern of Learning motivation proposed by self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 19:3 (2005), 699–717.
33. Roca, J.C., Chiu, C.M., Martínez, F.J., Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64:8 (2006), 683–696.
34. Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989), 749–761.
35. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (2000), 68–78.
36. Sass, D.A., Smith, P.L., The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 13:4 (2006), 566–586.
37. Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., Olshavsky, R.W., A re-examination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60:1 (1996), 15–32.
38. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A., Understanding information on technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6:2 (1995), 144–176.
39. Thong, J.Y., Hong, S.J., Tam, K.Y., The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64:9 (2006), 799–810.
40. Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M.S., Guay, F., Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:5 (1997), 1161–1176.
41. Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing?. Journal of Educational Psychology 97:3 (2005), 468–483.
42. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27:3 (2003), 425–478.
43. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X., Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36:1 (2012), 157–178.
44. Wang, Y., Baker, R., Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs?. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 11:1 (2015), 17–30.
45. Wu, B., Chen, X., Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017), 221–232.
46. Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M.L., Suen, H.K., Pursel, B., Goins, D.D., Examining the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural equation modeling approach. Global Education Review 2:3 (2015), 23–33.
47. Yuan, L., Powell, S., MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. 2013, Cetis White Paper Retrieved on September 24, 2015 from http://publications.cetis.org.uk/2013/667.
48. Zheng, S., Rosson, M.B., Shih, P.C., Carroll, J.M., Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 2015, 1882–1895.
49. Zhou, T., Understanding mobile Internet continuance usage from the perspectives of UTAUT and flow. Information Development 27:3 (2011), 207–218.
50. Zhou, M., Chinese university students' acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education 92 (2016), 194–203.