Abstract
MOOC is an innovative method in modern education, particularly important for sharing of excellent educational resources worldwide. To realize the full potential of MOOC, we need to understand the factors influencing MOOC success. In this study a theoretical framework has been proposed by integrating a self-regulated learning theory and DeLone and McLean success model to investigate the determinants of successful MOOC. This study aimed to (1) examine the relationships between quality factors and satisfaction; self-regulated learning and (2) understand the role of satisfaction as a mediator of the quality factors /self-regulated learning relationships. Six hundred twenty-two structured questionnaires collected from undergraduate students in Malaysia. The subsequent analysis employing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) revealed three main results: first, system quality has a positive impact on satisfaction; second, satisfaction and service quality have a positive impact on self-regulated learning; finally, system quality has an indirect effect on SRL via satisfaction. The findings provide by the study will guide MOOC designer and developer to formulate methods and strategies that could further improve the adoption of MOOC successfully.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
The datasets are available from the author upon request.
References
Al-Adwan, A. S. (2020). Investigating the drivers and barriers to MOOCs adoption: The perspective of TAM. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10250-z.
Albelbisi, N. A. (2019). The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1681–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09855-2.
Albelbisi, N. A. (2020). Development and validation of the MOOC success scale (MOOC-SS). Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4535–4555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10186-4.
Albelbisi, N. A., & Yusop, F. D. (2019). Factors influencing Learners' self-regulated learning skills in a massive open online course (MOOC) environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.598191.
Albelbisi, N. A., & Yusop, F. D. (2020). Systematic review of a Nationwide Mooc initiative in Malaysian higher education system. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.002.
Albelbisi, N., Yusop, F. D., & Salleh, U. K. M. (2018). Mapping the factors influencing success of massive open online courses (MOOC) in higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 2995–3012. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91486.
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006.
Aparicio, M., Oliveira, T., Bacao, F., & Painho, M. (2019). Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success. Information & Management, 56(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.06.003.
Azevedo, J., & Marques, M. M. (2017). MOOC success factors: Proposal of an analysis framework. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 233–251. https://doi.org/10.28945/3861.
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), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cheng, S. I., Chen, S. C., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Continuance intention of E-portfolio system: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis of technology acceptance model. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 42, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2015.03.002.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.
Cohen, A., & Baruth, O. (2017). Personality, learning, and satisfaction in fully online academic courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.030.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
Dong, T.-P., Cheng, N.-C., & Wu, Y.-C. J. (2014). A study of the social networking website service in digital content industries: The Facebook case in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.037.
Drake, J. R., O'Hara, M., & Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for MOOC design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14(14), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.28945/2250.
Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G. O. A., & Ofori, K. S. (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected Ghanaian universities. Education Sciences, 8(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020070.
Gamage, D., Fernando, S., & Perera, I. (2015, August). Quality of MOOCs: A review of literature on effectiveness and quality aspects. In Ubi-Media Computing (UMEDIA), 2015 8th International Conference on (pp. 224-229). https://doi.org/10.1109/UMEDIA.2015.7297459.
Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462.
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.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669.
Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Gámiz-Sánchez, V. M., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. (2015). MOOC & B-learning: Students' barriers and satisfaction in formal and non-formal learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(3), 88–111 Retrieved April 9, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161518/.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Ronald, L. T. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). London: Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.
Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Ramayah, T., & Mutahar, A. M. (2017). Examining the relationship between overall quality, user satisfaction and internet usage: An integrated individual, technological, organizational and social perspective. Asian Journal of Information Technology, 16(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajit.2017.100.124.
Kevan, J. M., Menchaca, M. P., & Hoffman, E. S. (2016, April). Designing MOOCs for success: A student motivation-oriented framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 274-278). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883941.
Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2015). “How satisfied are you with your MOOC?”—A research study about interaction in huge online courses. Journalism and mass communication, 5(12), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.17265/2160-6579/2015.12.003.
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016, April). Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 101-104). Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893378.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Hatala, M. (2015). What public media reveals about MOOCs: A systematic analysis of news reports. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 510–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12277.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., Mitchell, R., Warburton, S., & Williams, S. A. (2019). A MOOC taxonomy based on classification schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2019-0006.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88, 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001.
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, 22, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9492-y.
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044.
Onah, D. F. O., & Sinclair, J. E. (2017). Assessing self-regulation of learning dimensions in a stand-alone MOOC platform. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 7(2), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v7i2.6511.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Open University Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004.
Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in academic curriculum: A pilot study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.2031.
Sun, P., Tasi, R. J., Finger, G., & Chen, Y. (2008). What drives a successful e- learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics., 6th edition. Pearson Education: Boston.
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.
Yakubu, M. N., & Dasuki, S. (2018). Assessing eLearning systems success in Nigeria: An application of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 183–203. https://doi.org/10.28945/4077.
Yamane, T. (1967). Problems to accompany statistics: An introduction analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Yang, M., Shao, Z., Liu, Q., & Liu, C. (2017). Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1195–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9513-6.
Zhao, H. (2016). Factors influencing self-regulation in e-learning 2.0: Confirmatory factor model. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42(2), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2C33K.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. New York, NY: Springer Series in Cognitive Development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4_1.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 311–328). New York: Routledge. Retrieved October 11, 2019 from https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203876428.ch16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Self-Regulated Learning
- SRGL1 :
-
I know what I am going to achieve in this MOOC course.
- SRGL2:
-
I have set aside time to study the MOOC course.
- SRGL3:
-
I have high standards for my work on this MOOC course.
- SRGL4:
-
I have set targets for all I want to achieve in this MOOC course.
- SRGL5:
-
I have written down the goals I plan to achieve by the end of this MOOC course.
- SRGL6:
-
I work strategically to prioritize tasks to help me achieve my learning goals in MOOC course.
- SRGL7:
-
I am prepared to tackle any challenging aspects of the work in this MOOC course.
- SRGL8:
-
I have planned ahead in order to devote the necessary time to my online studies.
- SRGL9:
-
I find a good time to study when I won’t be distracted.
- SRGL10:
-
I choose my study location in order to avoid distractions.
- SRGL11:
-
I find a comfortable place to study.
- SRGL12:
-
I choose an appropriate place to work in order to study effectively.
- SRGL13 :
-
I plan to use the interactive communication channels provided to gain support from peers and tutors.
- SRGL14:
-
I plan to participate in the course discussion forums in order to get the most out of the course.
- SRGL15:
-
While engaging in this course, I will reflect on my study in each module.
- SRGL16:
-
I will be proactive in engaging and reviewing progress in the learning path I select.
Satisfaction
- STF1:
-
I am satisfied with my decision to take this course via MOOC.
- STF2:
-
If I had an opportunity to take another course via MOOC, I would gladly do so.
- STF3:
-
My choice to take this course via MOOC was a wise one.
- STF4:
-
I was very satisfied with the MOOC course.
- STF5:
-
I feel that this MOOC course served my needs well.
- STF6:
-
I will take as many courses via MOOC as I can.
- STF7:
-
If I had it to do over, I would take this course via MOOC.
- STF8:
-
I think conducting the course via MOOC made it easier than other courses I have taken.
Information quality
- IFQ1:
-
I believe that MOOC system provides me with the outputs that I need.
- IFQ2:
-
I believe that information (i.e. learning materials) from the MOOC system is in a form that is readily usable.
- IFQ3:
-
I believe that, MOOC system provides information (i.e. learning materials) that is easy to understand.
- IFQ4:
-
I believe that information (i.e. learning materials) from the MOOC system is concise.
System quality
- SYQ1:
-
For me, the MOOC system is easy to use.
- SYQ2:
-
For me, the MOOC system is easy to manage.
- SYQ3:
-
For me, MOOC system meets my expectations.
- SYQ4:
-
For me, MOOC system includes necessary features and functions for my study.
- SYQ5:
-
For me, all data within MOOC system is fully integrated and consistent.
Service quality
- SEQ1:
-
In my MOOC learning experiences, the instructors are good to learners.
- SEQ2:
-
In my MOOC learning experiences, the instructors are friendly to learners.
- SEQ3:
-
In my MOOC learning experiences, the instructors are knowledgeable enough about the content.
- SEQ4:
-
In my MOOC learning experiences, the instructors are available via e-mail, phone or fax.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albelbisi, N.A., Al-Adwan, A.S. & Habibi, A. Self-regulated learning and satisfaction: A key determinants of MOOC success. Educ Inf Technol 26, 3459–3481 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10404-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10404-z