Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learner success and the factors influencing it in computer programming MOOC

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

Abstract

Learners’ success in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the factors influencing it have previously been examined mainly upon completion of the course. This approach does not reveal whether learners are fulfilling their initial intentions regarding MOOCs and which factors affect it and thus the individual success of the learners. This quantitative study using decision tree analysis with the CHAID growing method was conducted. The dependent variable was learners’ success, and it was measured as a difference between learners’ intentions and their actual course performance. Aspects of learners’ background, engagement and motivations were used as independent variables to determine which of these affect learners’ success in computer programming MOOC. Data was collected from learning platform and with voluntary questionnaire. The results showed that over two-thirds of the learners in this study were successful. Success was influenced by learners’ prior education, use of the referred external materials, prior experience with programming and online courses, and only one motivational factor – Usefulness related to certification. Prior education had the strongest impact. The results indicate that learners’ success is affected by previous learning experiences. It is suggested to complement learning materials with links to external materials and develop a range of support mechanisms for learners to choose from. This study expands previous research on learners’ success, basing the measurement of success on learners’ intentions. This knowledge can be useful for MOOC organisers who can re-evaluate the resources used on the courses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Aldowah, H., Al-Samarraie, H., Alzahrani, A. I., & Alalwan, N. (2020). Factors affecting student dropout in MOOCs: a cause and effect decision-making model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09241-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antipov, E., & Pokryshevskaya, E. (2010). Applying CHAID for logistic regression diagnostics and classification accuracy improvement. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2010.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anutariya, C., & Thongsuntia, W. (2019). MOOC Design and Learners Engagement Analysis: A Learning Analytics Approach. In 2019 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET) (pp. 5–10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIET48054.2019.8986057

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepp, M., Luik, P., Palts, T., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., & Tõnisson, E. (2017a). MOOC in Programming: A Success Story. In Campbel, L. & Hartshorne, R. (Eds.), The 12th International Conference on E-Learning (ICEL) (pp. 138−147). Academic Publishing International (API).

  • Lepp, M., Luik, P., Palts, T., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., Hollo, K., Vaherpuu, V., & Tõnisson, E. (2017b). Self- and Automated Assessment in Programming MOOCs. In Joosten-ten Brinke, D. & Laanpere, M. (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA 2016) (pp. 72−85). Springer Proceedings of Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57744-9_7

  • Luik, P., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Säde, M., Suviste, R., Tõnisson, E., & Gaiduk, M. (2018). Completion of Programming MOOC or Dropping out: Are There any Differences in Motivation? In Ntalianis. K., Andreatos, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (Eds.), The 17th European Conference on e Learning ECEL 2018 (pp. 329−337). UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

  • Lepp, M., Palts, T., Luik, P., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., Hollo, K., Vaherpuu, V., & Tõnisson, E. (2018). Troubleshooters for Tasks of Introductory Programming MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3639

  • Luik, P., Suviste, R., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Tõnisson, E., Säde, M., & Papli, K. (2019a). What motivates enrolment in programming MOOCs? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12600

  • Luik, P., Feklistova, L., Lepp, M., Tõnisson, E., Suviste, R., Gaiduk, M., Säde, M., Palts, T. (2019b). Participants and completers in programming MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3689−3706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09954-8

  • Luik, P., Lepp, M., Feklistova, L., Säde, M., Rõõm, M., Palts, T., Suviste, R., & Tõnisson, E. (2020). Programming MOOCs – different learners and different motivation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1780329

  • Rõõm, M., Luik, P., & Lepp, M. (2020a). Learners’ Sequence of the Course Activities During Computer Programming MOOC. In Busch, C., Steinicke, M., & Wendler, T. (Eds.), The 19th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL2020) (pp. 452−459). Academic Conferences Ltd. https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.20.032

  • Rõõm, M., Luik, P., & Lepp, M. (2020b). Learners’ use of time in MOOCs about programming. In Gómez, L., López Martínez,C.A. & Candel Torres, I. (Eds.), The 12th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN20) (pp. 4380−4387). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2020.1162

  • Luik, P., & Lepp, M. (2021). Are Highly Motivated Learners More Likely to Complete a Computer Programming MOOC? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4978

  • Rõõm, M., Lepp, M., & Luik, P. (2021). Dropout Time and Learners’ Performance in Computer Programming MOOCs. Education Sciences, 11(10), 643. 1−13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100643

  • Avello, M., Wiltrout, M. E., Bell, A., Haar, C. V., & Fruchtman, S. (2020). Impact of Course Delivery Mode on Learner Engagement in MOOCs. In 2020 IEEE Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS) (pp. 68–72). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS50143.2020.9234325

  • Aydin, I. E., & Yazici, M. (2020). Drop-Out in MOOCs. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 19(3), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrar, D. (2018). Cross-validation. In S. Ranganathan, M. Gribskov, K. Nakai, & K. Schönbach (Eds.), Encyclopedia of bioinformatics and computational biology (pp. 542–545). Elsevier.

  • Canchola González, J. A., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2020). Factors that Influence Learner Engagement and Completion Rate in an xMOOC on Energy and sustainability. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 12(2), 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaker, R., & Bachelet, R. (2020). Internationalizing Professional Development: using Educational Data Mining to Analyze Learners’ performance and dropouts in a french MOOC. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 21(4), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Malan, D. J. (2020a). Computational thinking and assignment resubmission predict persistence in a computer science MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 581–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q., & Tang, Y. (2020b). Discovering MOOC learner motivation and its moderating role. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(12), 1257–1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crues, R. W., Henricks, G. M., Perry, M., Anderson, C. J., Bhat, S., Shaik, N., & Angrave, L. (2018). How do gender, learning goals, and forum participation predict persistence in a computer science MOOC? ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(4), https://doi.org/10.1145/3152892.

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2019). Learner engagement in MOOCs: scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Zahn, I. (2008). Motivation. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational psychology (pp. 686–692). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsayed Mohamed, U. U., & Ali, A. M. (2018). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Their Effect on Learners’ Motivation. In 2018 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the Muslim World (ICT4M) (pp. 249–253). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICT4M.2018.00053

  • Eriksson, T., Adawi, T., & Stöhr, C. (2017). “Time is the Bottleneck”: a qualitative study exploring why Learners Drop out of MOOCs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. J., Baker, R. B., & Dee, T. S. (2016). Persistence patterns in massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 206–242. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: potential of the Concept, State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Romero, J. M., Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2020). Analyzing learners’ engagement and behavior in MOOCs on programming with the Codeboard IDE. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(5), 2505–2528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09773-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J., & Brooks, C. (2018). Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling & User-Adapted Interaction, 28(2), 127–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Zermeno, M. G., & de La Aleman, L. (2016). Research Analysis on MOOC Course Dropout and Retention Rates. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of Retention and Achievement in a massive Open Online Course. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 925–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., & Sabitha, A. S. (2019). Deciphering the Attributes of Student Retention in massive Open Online courses using Data Mining techniques. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 1973–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention–behavior gap. Distance Education, 38(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: what strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Factors influencing learning and factors influencing persistence: A mixed-method study of MOOC learners’ motivation. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F128274 (pp. 103–110). https://doi.org/10.1145/3077584.3077610

  • Isidro, C., Carro, R. M., & Ortigosa, A. (2018). Dropout Detection in MOOCs: An Exploratory Analysis. In 2018 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2018.8586748

  • Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning Engagement and persistence in massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Computers & Education, 122, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaveri, A., Gunasekar, S., Gupta, D., & Pratap, M. (2016). Decoding Engagement in MOOCs: An Indian Learner Perspective. In 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E) (pp. 100–105). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2016.027

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing Learner Subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses. In Suters, D., Verbert K., Duval, E., & Ochoa (Eds.), The Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170–179). Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460330

  • Li, K., Johnsen, J., & Canelas, D. A. (2021). Persistence, performance, and goal setting in massive open online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1215–1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Kang, J., & McKelroy, E. (2015). Examining learners’ perspective of taking a MOOC: reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International, 52(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1053289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maya-Jariego, I., Holgado, D., González-Tinoco, E., Castaño-Muñoz, J., & Punie, Y. (2020). Typology of motivation and learning intentions of users in MOOCs: the MOOCKNOWLEDGE study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(1), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09682-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla Rodriguez, B. C. (2020). Success Indicators for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 39–41). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00018

  • Perez-Alvarez, R., Perez-Sanagustin, M., & Maldonado, M. J. J. (2016). How to design tools for supporting self-regulated learning in MOOCs? Lessons learned from a literature review from 2008 to 2016. In 2016 XLII Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI) (pp. 1–12). https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEI.2016.7833361

  • Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/12/mooc-completion-and-retention-in-the-context-of-student-intent

  • Reparaz, C., Aznárez-Sanado, M., & Mendoza, G. (2020). Self-regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 111. 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106423

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenova, T. (2021). Not only the intention to complete: The role of action-oriented intentions in mooc completion. Technology, Knowledge and Learning: Learning Mathematics, Science and the Arts in the Context of Digital Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09534-1

  • Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, W., Li, N. E., Çetinkaya-Rundel, K., M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y. Y., & Lu, Y. (2015). Decision tree methods: applications for classification and prediction. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 27(2), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.215044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stracke, C. M. (2017). Why we need High Drop-out Rates in MOOCs: New Evaluation and Personalization Strategies for the Quality of Open Education. In M. Chang, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang, Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & R. Vasiu (Eds.), The 17th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2017) (pp. 13–15). IEEE: Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2017.109

  • Tang, X., Li, S., & Huang, Z. (2020). The relationship between mode and content type of forum interaction and MOOC engagement pattern. In 2020 Ninth International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 182–187). https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT50754.2020.00039

  • Vitiello, M., Walk, S., Helic, D., Guetl, C., & Chang, V. (2018). User behavioral patterns and early dropouts detection: improved users profiling through analysis of successive offering of MOOC. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(8), 1131–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. M., Stafford, R. E., Corliss, S. B., & Reilly, E. D. (2018). Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 126, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., & Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining the relations among Student Motivation, Engagement, and Retention in a MOOC: a structural equation modeling Approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding Student Motivation, Behaviors and Perceptions in MOOCs. In The ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 1882–1895). ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Narva mnt 18, 51009, Tartu, Estonia

    Marili Rõõm, Piret Luik & Marina Lepp

Authors
  1. Marili Rõõm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piret Luik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Lepp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marili Rõõm.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rõõm, M., Luik, P. & Lepp, M. Learner success and the factors influencing it in computer programming MOOC. Educ Inf Technol 28, 8645–8663 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11535-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11535-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation