Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The moderating effect of social capital on co-regulated learning for MOOC achievement

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to track down elements of self-regulated learning in a massive open online course regarding social capital. Specifically, the study is oriented to explore the relationship between feeling of belonging to an online community and individual and collective regulation of learning. For this aim, a combination of two already tested scales was operated, adapted for the research interests of this study and administered to a sample of MOOC participants. Several structural equation modelling analyses demonstrate that co- and self-regulated learning strategies lead to MOOC achievement (final exam score), and social capital is only a moderator of co-regulated learning (collective evaluation of content and collective decision-making) but not for self-regulated learning (individual environment control).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artino, A. R. (2007). Self-regulated learning in online education: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(6), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2008). The role of self-regulation in learning about science with hypermedia. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student Learning (pp. 127–156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. J. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9064-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of interactive marketing, 16(2), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J., & Fleishman, J. A. (1994). The robustness of maximum likelihood and distribution-free estimators to non-normality in confirmatory factor analysis. Quality and Quantity, 28(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400–404.

  • Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. Wiley. 352 p.

  • Boekaerts, M., Pintrich P, R. & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation. A Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of learning disabilities, 25(4), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). L’illusion biographique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 62(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1986.2317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozkurt, A., & Keefer, J. (2018). Participatory learning culture and community formation in connectivist MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1412988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae, C., Suh, B., Han, S. H., Han, H., & Lim, D. H. (2018). Enhancing learner-driven informal learning in a virtual practice community: The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) as a learning solution for professional development. In Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in Teacher Education (pp. 207–226). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2953-8.CH011.

  • Chen, Y. H., & Chen, P. J. (2015). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J, S. (1990). Foundations of social capital. Cambridge: Belknap.

  • Davis, D., Chen, G., van der Zee, T., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2016). Retrieval practice and study planning in MOOCs: Exploring classroom-based self-regulated learning strategies at scale. In K. Verbert, M. Sharples, & T. Klobučar (Eds.), Adaptive and adaptable learning (pp. 57–71). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_5.

  • De Waard, I., Koutropoulos, A., Keskin, N., Abajian, S C., Hogue, R., Rodriguez, C O., & Gallagher, M S. (2011, October). Exploring the MOOC format as a pedagogical approach for mLearning. In Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 138–145). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5317/3406caa20421c35cee0abeee6148e63de1bc.pdf

  • Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 134–176. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Reid, R. (1992). Developing self-regulated learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(6) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477462.

  • Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 83–106). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 30, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Cscl, 2, 129–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward Terminological, Conceptual and Statistical Clarity in the Study of Mediators and Moderators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.65.4.599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J, Y., Chen, C, C., & Ting, P, F. (2018). Understanding MOOC continuance: An empirical examination of social support theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1446990

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive effects on student achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research, 4, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement Error in the Analysis of Interaction Effects Between Continuous Predictors Using Multiple Regression: Multiple Indicator and Structural Equation Approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J. Y., & Liu, C-W. (2015). High performance work systems and organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of social capital. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 126–137.

  • Johnson, G, B. (2013). Student perceptions of the flipped classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

  • Jones, M. H., Estell, D. B., & Alexander, J. M. (2008). Friends, classmates, and self-regulated learning: Discussions with peers inside and outside the classroom. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. M., Stephens, M., Branch-Mueller, J., & de Groot, J. (2016). Community of practice or affinity space: A case study of a professional development MOOC. Education for Information, 32(1), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., Yang, F., Marcoulides, G., & Schumacker, R. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques, 3, 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014976022227.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, J. (2014). Co-regulation in technology enhanced learning environments. In L. Uden, F. J. Sinclair, Y.-H. Tao, & D. LiberonaF (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education in Cloud. MOOC and Big Data, CCIS (446) (pp. 72–81). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_7.

  • Kaplan, J., de Montalembert, M., Laurent, P., & Fenouillet, F. (2017). ERICA–an instrument to measure individual and collective regulation of learning. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2017.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S., Booth, S., & Oliver, K. (2014). A social network perspective on peer supported learning in MOOCs for educators. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 263–289. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., Watson, S, L., & Watson, W, R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3749

  • Lin, T, C., Hsu, J, S, C., Cheng, H, L., & Chiu, C, M. (2012). Exploring individuals’ loyalty to online support groups from the perspective of social support. The 16th pacific Asia conference on information system, Ho chi Minh, Vietnam.

  • Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and selfregulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. H. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magen-Nagar, N., & Cohen, L. (2016). Learning strategies as a mediator for motivation and a sense of achievement among students who study in MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9492-y

  • Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159 https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Makos, A., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2015). Capitalizing on social presence: The relationship between social capital and social presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. C., Fisher, A. L., Caemmerer, J. M., Keith, T. Z., & Poklar, A. E. (2018). The role of social support and coping skills in promoting self-regulated learning among urban youth. Youth & Society, 50(4), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15618313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ping, R. (1995). A Parsimonious Estimating Technique for Interaction and Quadratic Latent Variables. The Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 336–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ping, R. (1998). EQS and LISREL Examples Using Survey Data. In R. E. Schumacker & G. A. Marcoulides (Eds.), Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 63–100). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeinder (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13(Spring), Vol. 4.

  • Sarirete, A., & Brahimi, T. (2014, November). Enabling communities of practice within MOOCs. In 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWOAL.2014.7009232

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning, from teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables. Journal of Marketing research, 18, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).

  • Siemens, G., Downes S., Cormier, D., & Kop, R. (2010). PLENK2010 –Personal Learning Environments, Networks and Knowledge. Course blog http://connect.downes.ca

  • Struminger, B., Arora, S., Zalud-Cerrato, S., Lowrance, D., & Ellerbrock, T. (2017). Building virtual communities of practice for health. The Lancet, 390(10095), 632–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31666-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantardini, M., & Kroll, A. (2015). The role of organizational social capital in performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/257085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R, A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (p. 297–314). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.812125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. S. E. B. J. Zimmermann (Ed.), Self-Regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–199). New York, London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and material

Data is available upon request.

Code availability (software application or custom code)

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lyon 2 University, 86 rue Pasteur, 69007, Lyon, France

    Rawad Chaker

  2. Aix-Marseille University, 52 avenue Escadrille Normandie - Niemen, 13013, Marseille, France

    Maria Antonietta Impedovo

Authors
  1. Rawad Chaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Antonietta Impedovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rawad Chaker.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

French adaptation of Chiu et al. (2006) social capital scale (in italic).

Structural capital:

Social interactions.

SIT2. I spend a lot of time interacting with some members in the BlueShop virtual community.

SIT2. Je passe beaucoup de temps à interagir avec d’autres inscrits au MOOC GdP.

SIT3. I know some members in the BlueShop virtual community on a personal level.

SIT3. Je connais quelques inscrits au MOOC GdP à un niveau personnel.

SIT4. I have frequent communication with some members of the BlueShop virtual community.

SIT4. Je communique fréquemment avec quelques inscrits au MOOC GdP.

Relational capital:

Trust.

TR2. Members in the BlueShop virtual community will always keep the promises they make.

TR2. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP tiennent toujours leurs engagements.

TR4. Members in the BlueShop virtual community behave in a consistent manner.

TR4. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP se comportent de manière fiable.

TR5. Members in the BlueShop virtual community are truthful in dealing with one another.

TR5. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP se comportent de manière franche et honnête les uns avec les autres.

Identification.

ID1. I feel a sense of belonging towards the BlueShop virtual community.

ID1. Je ressens un sentiment d’appartenance à la communauté des inscrits au MOOC GdP.

ID2. I have the feeling of togetherness or closeness in the BlueShop virtual community.

ID2. Je ressens un sentiment de solidarité ou de proximité avec les autres inscrits au MOOC GdP.

ID3. I have a strong positive feeling toward the BlueShop virtual community.

ID3. Je ressens un fort sentiment positif envers les autres inscrits au MOOC GdP.

Cognitive capital:

Shared language.

SL1. The members in the BlueShop virtual community use common terms of jargons.

SL1. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP utilisent un même jargon.

SL2. Members in the BlueShop virtual community use understandable communication pattern during the discussion.

SL2. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP utilisent des manières de communiquer compréhensibles durant les discussions.

SL3. Members in the BlueShop virtual community use understandable narrative forms to post messages or articles.

SL3. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP utilisent des styles de rédaction compréhensibles lorsqu’ils postent ou envoient des messages.

Shared vision.

SV1. Members in the BlueShop virtual community share the vision of helping others solve their professional problems.

SV1. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP partagent les valeurs d’entraide pour la résolution de problèmes.

SV2. Members in the BlueShopvirtual community share the same goal of learning from each other.

SV2. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP partagent le même but d’apprendre les uns des autres.

SV3. Members in the BlueShop virtual community share the same value that helping others is pleasant.

SV3. Les inscrits au MOOC GdP partagent le même sentiment qu’aider les autres est agréable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaker, R., Impedovo, M.A. The moderating effect of social capital on co-regulated learning for MOOC achievement. Educ Inf Technol 26, 899–919 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10293-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10293-2

Keywords