Learning Engagement and Persistence in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS)

Computers and Education

Volumn 122, Issue , 2018, Pages 9-22

  Jung, Yeonji ^a   Lee, Jeongmin ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Academic self efficacy; Learning engagement; Learning persistence; MOOCs; Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Teaching presence

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; LEARNING SYSTEMS; TEACHING;

ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY; LEARNING ENGAGEMENT; LEARNING PERSISTENCE; MOOCS; PERCEIVED EASE OF USE; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; TEACHING PRESENCE;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 85044101623     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Adamopoulous, P., What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. Paper presented at the thirty fourth international conference on information systems, Milan, Italy, 2013.
2. Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P., Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education 80 (2015), 28–38.
3. Astin, A.W., What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. 1993, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
4. Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (1977), 191–215.
5. Bayne, S., Ross, J., MOOC pedagogy. Kim, P., (eds.) Massive open online Courses: The MOOC revolution, 2015, Routledge, Oxford.
6. Breslow, L., 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. Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., (eds.) Testing structural equation models, 1993, SAGE, Newsbury Park, CA, 136–162.
8. Chang, R.I., Hung, Y.H., Lin, C.F., Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology 46:3 (2015), 528–541.
9. Chauhan, A., Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review 25 (2014), 7–17.
10. Cho, S., Factors influencing the acceptance of massive open online courses: An explanatory study based on Technology Acceptance Model II. Korean Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 15:9 (2015), 601–619.
11. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., Emanuel, E., The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why?. 2013, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania http://www.meducationalliance.org/sites/default/files/the_mooc_phenomenon.pdf.
12. Coates, H., Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. 2006, Routledge, London.
13. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., Caballé S., A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. Proceedings of 8th international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and internet computing (3PGCIC), 2013, October, IEEE, 208–213.
14. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:3 (1989), 319–340.
15. Fini, A., The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10:5 (2009), 1–26.
16. Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E.D., Sujitparapitaya, S., Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education 12:7 (2014), 94–115.
17. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H., School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74:1 (2004), 59–109.
18. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18:1 (1981), 39–50.
19. Günüç S., Kuzu, A., Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-class-technology theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 5:4 (2014), 86–113.
20. Hau, K.T., Marsh, H.W., The use of item parcels in structural equation modelling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 57:2 (2004), 327–351.
21. He, Y.C., Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: The relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 2009, University of Southern California.
22. Hew, K.F., Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology 47:2 (2016), 320–341.
23. 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.
24. Hollands, F.M., Tirthali, D., MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report., 2014, Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University NY. Retrieved from http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf.
25. Hu, S., Reconsidering the relationship between student engagement and persistence in college. Innovative Higher Education 36:2 (2011), 97–106.
26. Impey, C.D., Wenger, M.C., Austin, C.L., Astronomy for astronomical numbers: A worldwide massive open online class. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16:1 (2015), 57–79.
27. Jeong, E., Exploring the factors that influence college students’ class participation: Focus on autonomy support, academic self-efficacy, and task value. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies 24:2 (2012), 355–378.
28. Johnson-Farmer, B.J., Frenn, M., Teaching excellence: What great teachers teach us. Journal of Professional Nursing 25:5 (2009), 267–272.
29. Jonassen, D.H., Grabowski, B.L., Handbook of individual differences learning and instruction. 2012, Routledge, New York, NY.
30. Joo, Y., Kim, N., Kim, G., The Structural relationship among self-efficacy, internal locus of control, school support, learning flow, satisfaction and learning persistence in cyber education. Korean Journal of Educational Technology 26:1 (2010), 25–55.
31. 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.
32. Juhary, J., Perceived usefulness and ease of use of the learning management systems as a learning tool. International Education Studies 7:8 (2014), 23–34.
33. Kember, D., Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education 58:1 (2009), 1–13.
34. Kim, J.H., A structural analysis of factors affecting learning flow of participants in lifelong education programs. Korean Journal of Argricultural Education and Human Resource Development 37:4 (2005), 275–301.
35. Kim, S.W., The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on learner flow in e-learning community. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education 11:6 (2006), 87–97.
36. Kim, S.Y., Fundamental and extension of structural equation modeling with MPLUS examples. 2016, Hakjisa, Seoul.
37. Kim, S.W., Oh, S.U., Analysis on effects of technology acceptance and learning flow by the learner's self-efficacy in e-Learning system. Korean Journal Learning and Performance 7:1 (2005), 27–50.
38. Kizilcec, R.F., Piech, C., Schneider, E., Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge, 2013, April, 170–179 (Leuven, Belgium).
39. Kline, R.B., Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed., 2011, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
40. Ko, E.H., The exploratory empirical study of teaching presence as a construct in online learning context. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media 12:4 (2006), 263–287.
41. Kock, N., Using WarpPLS in e-collaboration studies: What if I have only one group and one condition?. International Journal of e-Collaboration 9:3 (2013), 1–12.
42. Kop, R., Fournier, H., New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning 7:2 (2011), 1–18.
43. Kuh, G.D., The National Survey of Student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. 2001, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington, IN.
44. Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R.M., Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education 79:5 (2008), 540–563.
45. Lavigne, G.L., Vallerand, R.J., Miquelon, P., A motivational model of persistence in science education: A self-determination theory approach. European Journal of Psychology of Education 22:3 (2007), 351–369.
46. Liang, D., Jia, J., Wu, X., Miao, J., Wang, A., Analysis of learners’ behaviors and learning outcomes in a massive open online course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning 6:3 (2014), 281–298.
47. Liu, M., Kang, J., McKelroy, E., Examining learners’ perspective of taking a MOOC: Reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International 52:2 (2015), 129–146.
48. Marsh, H.W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A.J., Von Davier, M., Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods 18:3 (2013), 257–284.
49. Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9:2 (2013), 149–159.
50. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., How college affects students: A third decade of research. 2005, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
51. Pintrich, P.R., De Groot, E.V., Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:1 (1990), 33–40.
52. Poellhuber, B., Roy, N., Bouchoucha, I., Anderson, T., The relationships between the motivational profiles, engagement profiles and persistence of MOOC participants. MOOC Research Initiative, Final Report., 2014.
53. Pursel, B.K., Zhang, L., Jablokow, K.W., Choi, G.W., Velegol, D., Understanding MOOC students: Motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 32:3 (2016), 202–217.
54. Puzziferro, M., Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education 22:2 (2008), 72–89.
55. Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., Daumé H. III, Getoor, L., Modeling learner engagement in MOOCs using probabilistic soft logic. Paper presented at the NIPS data-driven education workshop, 2013, December.
56. Reich, J., Emanuel, J., Nesterko, S.O., Seaton, D.T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., et al. HeroesX: The ancient Greek Hero: Spring 2013 course report., 2014.
57. Rha, I.J., Understanding MOOCs in a global learning age. 2016, Hakjisa, Seoul.
58. th ed., 2003, The Free Press, New York, NY.
59. Ross, J., Sinclair, C., Knox, J., Macleod, H., Teacher experiences and academic identity: The missing components of MOOC pedagogy. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10:1 (2014), 57–69.
60. Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S., Accessibility considerations of massive online open courses as creditable courses in engineering programs. Proceedings of the 6th international conference of education, research, and innovation ICERI, 2013, Nov, IATED, Sevile, Spain, 5853–5862.
61. Shea, P., Bidjerano, T., Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education 55:4 (2010), 1721–1731.
62. Shea, P., Li, C., Pickett, A., A study of teaching and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college course. The Internet and Higher Education 9:3 (2006), 175–190.
63. Shea, P., Pickett, A.M., Pelz, W.E., A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY Networks. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks 7:2 (2003), 61–80.
64. Shin, N., Transactional presence as critical predictors of success in distance learning. Distance Education 24:1 (2003), 48–58.
65. Sun, J.C.Y., Rueda, R., Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology 43:2 (2012), 191–204.
66. Swan, K.P., Richardson, J.C., Ice, P., Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Arbaugh, J.B., Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor 2:24 (2008), 88–94.
67. The Ministry of Education in South Korea, The announcement of the participating universities and courses in 2016. 2016, The Ministry of Education in South Korea press release.
68. Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., Schneider, E., Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology 46:3 (2015), 570–587.
69. Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G., Lovegrove, E., Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9:2 (2013), 200–215.
70. Wang, A.Y., Newlin, M.H., Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior 18:2 (2002), 151–163.
71. Wang, Y., Baker, R., Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs?. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 2015, 17.
72. Willging, P.A., Johnson, S.D., Factors that influence students’ decision to drop out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network 8:4 (2004), 105–118.
73. Wise, A.F., Cui, Y., Jin, W.Q., Vytasek, J., Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling. The Internet and Higher Education 32 (2017), 11–28.
74. 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 (2016), 221–232.
75. 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.
76. Xu, F., Research of the MOOC study behavior influencing factors. Proceedings of international conference on advanced information and communication technology for education, 2015, Atlantis Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 18–22.
77. Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., Rosé C.P., Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropout in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the NIPS data-driven education workshop, 2013 Retrieved from http://lytics.stanford.edu/datadriveneducation/papers/yangetal.pdf.
78. You, J.W., The relationship among academic procrastination, self-regulated learning, fear, academic self-efficacy, and perceived academic control in e-Learning. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media 18:3 (2012), 249–271.
79. You, J.W., Kang, M.H., The structural relationship among social factor, psychological need factor, and motivational factor for enhancing learning engagement. Korean Journal of Educational Research 49:4 (2011), 55–85.
80. You, J.W., Song, Y.H., Probing the interaction effects of task value and academic self-efficacy on learning engagement and persistence in an e-learning Course. Korean Journal of Leaner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 13:3 (2013), 91–112.