Top

Quality & Quantity

Published in:

13-10-2023

Assessing heterogeneity in MOOC student performance through composite-based path modelling

Authors: Davino Cristina, Lamberti Giuseppe, Vistocco Domenico

Published in: Quality & Quantity | Issue 3/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are potentially participated in by very many students from different parts of the world, which means that learning analytics is especially challenging. In this framework, predicting students’ performance is a key issue, but the high level of heterogeneity affects understanding and measurement of the causal links between performance and its drivers, including motivation, attitude to learning, and engagement, with different models recommended for the formulation of appropriate policies. Using data for the FedericaX EdX MOOC platform (Federica WebLearning Centre at the University of Naples Federico II), we exploit a consolidated composite-based path model to relate performance with engagement and learning. The model addresses heterogeneity by analysing gender, age, country of origin, and course design differences as they affect performance. Results reveal subgroups of students requiring different learning strategies to enhance final performance. Our main findings were that differences in performance depended mainly on learning for male students taking instructor-paced courses, and on engagement for older students (> 32 years) taking self-paced courses.

previous article Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown stringency on foreign institutional investment in India: evidence from wavelet coherence and spectral causality approaches

next article The shadow pandemic: exploring the indigenous factors behind life-threatening and trivial intimate Partner violence during COVID-19 in South Punjab, Pakistan

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

https://www.federica.eu/en/partners/edx/

Students from Africa and Oceania were merged in a single group labelled “Others” due to the small number of cases. This classification was justified by similar average performance values for students from those two geographical regions.

Allione, G., Stein, R.M.: Mass attrition: an analysis of Drop Out from Principles of Microeconomics MOOC. J. Econ. Educ. 47(2), 174–186 (2016)CrossRef

Azevedo, R.: Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educ. Psychol. 50(1), 84–94 (2015)CrossRef

Bradley, W., Henseler, J.: Modeling Reflective Higher-order Constructs using Three Approaches with Pls Path Modeling: A Monte Carlo Comparison (2007) https://hdl.handle.net/2066/160877

Carannante, M., Davino, C., Vistocco, D.: Modelling students’ performance in moocs: a multivariate approach. Stud. High. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1723526CrossRef

Cheah, J.H., Amaro, S., Roldán, J.L.: Multigroup analysis of more than two groups in PLS-SEM: a review, illustration, and recommendations. J. Bus. Res. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113539CrossRef

Conijn, R., Van den Beemt, A., Cuijpers, P.: Predicting student performance in a blended MOOC. J. Comput. Assist. 34(5), 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12270CrossRef

Dabbagh, N.: The online learner: characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teacher Educ. 7(3), 217–226 (2007)

de Barba, P.G., Kennedy, G.E., Ainley, M.D.: The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. J. Comput. Assist. 32, 218–231 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130CrossRef

Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., Gannaway, D.: Linking learner factors, teaching context, and engagement patterns with MOOC learning outcomes. J. Comput. Assist. 36(5), 688–708 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12437CrossRef

Dweck, C.S.: Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41(10), 1040–1048 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040CrossRef

Endedijk, M.D., Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., et al.: Measuring students’ self-regulated learning in professional education: bridging the gap between event and aptitude measurements. Qual. Quant. 50, 2141–2164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0255-4CrossRef

Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H.: Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2010)CrossRef

Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G.O.A., Ofori, K.S.: Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected Ghanaian Universities. Sci. Educ. 8(2), 70 (2018)CrossRef

Fenollar, P., Román, S., Cuestas, P.J.: University students’ academic performance: an integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 77(4), 873–891 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X189118CrossRef

Gameel, B.G., Wilkins, K.G.: When it Comes to MOOCs, where you are from Makes a Difference. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 136, 49–60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.014CrossRef

Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E., Straub, D.: Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quart. iii–xiv (2011). https://doi.org/10.2307/23044042

Ghasemy, M., Teeroovengadum, V., Becker, J.M., Ringle, C.M.: This fast car can move faster: a review of PLS-SEM application in higher education research. High. Educ. 80(6), 1121–1152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00534-1CrossRef

Guàrdia, J., Freixa, M., Peró, M., et al.: Factors related to the academic performance of students in the statistics course in psychology. Qual. Quant. 40, 661–674 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-2072-7CrossRef

Goopio, J., Cheung, C.: The MOOC dropout phenomenon and retention strategies. J. Teach. Travel Tour. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2020.1809050CrossRef

Green, S.B.: How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 26(3), 499–510 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7

Guo, P.J., Reinecke, K.: Demographic Differences in how Students Navigate through MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 21–30) (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566247

Hair Jr, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., Gudergan, S.P.: Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Sage publications. (2017)

Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. (2016)

Hadwin, A.F., Nesbit, J.C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., Winne, P.H.: Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacogn. Learn.. Learn. 2, 107–124 (2007)CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 33(3), 405–431 (2016)CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sinkovics, R.R.: The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 20, 273–319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014CrossRef

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

Hintze, J.L., Nelson, R.D.: Violin plots: a box plot-density trace synergism. Am. Stat. 52(2), 181–184 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480559CrossRef

Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C.: Context counts: how learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 91, 83–91 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003CrossRef

Kahu, E.R.: Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 38(5), 758–773 (2013)CrossRef

Kizilcec, R.F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Maldonado, J.J.: Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 104, 18–33 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001CrossRef

Krasodomska, J., Godawska,: E-learning in accounting education: the influence of students’ characteristics on their engagement and performance. J. Account. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1867874CrossRef

Lamberti, G., Banet Aluja, T., Sanchez, G.: The pathmox approach for pls path modeling: discovering which constructs differentiate segments. Appl. Stoch. Models. Bus. Ind. 33(6), 674–689 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.2270CrossRef

Lamberti, G., Banet Aluja, T., Sanchez, G.: The pathmox approach for PLS path modeling segmentation. Appl. Stoch. Models. Bus. Ind. 32(4), 453–468 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.2168CrossRef

Lamberti, G.: Hybrid multigroup partial least squares structural equation modelling: an application to bank employee satisfaction and loyalty. Qual. Quant. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01096-9CrossRef

Lamberti, G., Aluja Banet, T., Rialp Criado, J.: Work climate drivers and employee heterogeneity. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.Resour. Manag. 33(3), 472–504 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1711798CrossRef

Lan, M., Hew, K.F.: Examining learning engagement in MOOCs: a self-determination theoretical perspective using mixed method. Int. J. Educ. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0179-5CrossRef

Lebart, L., Morineau, A., Fenelon, J.P.: Traitement des Donnees Statistiques. Dunod, Paris (1979)

Lee, J.: Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the Progress Toward Equity? Educ. Res. 31(1), 3–12 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031001003CrossRef

Li, K.: MOOC learners’ demographics, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived learning and satisfaction: a structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 132, 16–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.003CrossRef

Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., De Fraine, B.: The gender gap in student engagement: the role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 85(4), 498–518 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12095CrossRef

Lim, D.H., Morris, M.L., Yoon, S.W.: Combined effect of instructional and learner variables on course outcomes within an online learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 5(3), 255–269 (2006)

Lim, J.M.: Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in undergraduate self-paced online courses. Distance Educ. 37(3), 317–332 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1233050CrossRef

Lu, H.P., Lin, J.C.C., Hsiao, K.L., Cheng, L.T.: Information sharing behaviour on blogs in Taiwan: effects of interactivities and gender differences. Inf. 36(3), 401–416 (2010)

Maya-Jariego, I., Holgado, D., González-Tinoco, E., Castaño-Muñoz, J., Punie, Y.: Typology of motivation and learning intentions of users in MOOCs: the MOOCKNOWLEDGE study. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 68(1), 203–224 (2020)CrossRef

Moore, R.L., Wang, C.: Influence of learner motivational dispositions on MOOC completion. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 33(1), 121–134 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09258-8CrossRef

Ngah, A.H., Kamalrulzaman, N.I., Mohamad, M., et al.: Do science and social science differ? Multi-group analysis (MGA) of the willingness to continue online learning. Qual. Quant. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01465-yCrossRef

Ngah, A.H., Ramayah, T., Ali, M.H., Khan, M.I.: Halal transportation adoption among pharmaceuticals and comestics manufacturers. J. Islamic Mark. 11(6), 1619–1639 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-10-2018-0193CrossRef

Pellizzari, M., Billari, F.C.: The younger, the better? Age-related differences in academic performance at university. J. Popul. Econ.Popul. Econ. 25, 697–739 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-011-0379-3CrossRef

Phan, T., McNeil, S.G., Robin, B.R.: Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 95, 36–44 (2016)CrossRef

Rai, L., Yue, Z., Yang, T., Shadiev, R., Sun, N.: General Impact of MOOC Assessment Methods on Learner Engagement and Performance. In 2017 10th International Conference on Ubi-media Computing and Workshops (Ubi-Media) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. (2017)

Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., Iii, H.D., Getoor, L.: Learning Latent Engagement Patterns of Students in Online Courses. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1272–1278. AAAI Press. (2014)

Ramsay, S., Barker, M., Jones, E.: Academic adjustment and learning processes: a comparison of international and local students in first-year university. High. Educ. Res. 18(1), 129–144 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180110CrossRef

Rizvi, S., Rienties, B., Khoja, S.A.: The role of demographics in online learning; a decision tree based approach. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 137, 32–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.001CrossRef

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., Thomas, S.: International students, learning environments and perceptions: a case study using the Delphi technique. High. Educ. Res. 19(1), 89–102 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020499CrossRef

Reed, W.M., Oughton, J.M.: Computer experience and interval-based hypermedia navigation. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 30(1), 38–52 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1997.10782212CrossRef

Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O., Gudergan, S.P.: Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies!. J. Bus. Res. 69(10), 3998–4010 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.00

Shao, Z., Chen, K.: Understanding individuals’ engagement and continuance intention of MOOCs: the effect of interactivity and the role of gender. Internet Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-10-2019-0416CrossRef

Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., Quazi, A., Von der Heidt, T.: ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’Do international students’ acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct? High. Educ. 71(5), 651–666 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9928-0CrossRef

Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R., Koh, M.H.: Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet High. Educ. 7(1), 59–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003CrossRef

Sullivan, P.: Gender differences and the online classroom: male and female college students evaluate their experiences. Commun. Coll. J. Res. Pract. 25, 805–818 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1080/106689201753235930CrossRef

Tani, M., Gheith, M.H., Papaluca, O.: Drivers of student engagement in higher education: a behavioral reasoning theory perspective. High. Educ. 82(3), 499–518 (2021)CrossRef

Taplin, M., Jegede, O.: Gender differences in factors influencing achievement of distance education students. Open Learn. 16(2), 133–154 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510120050307CrossRef

Tezer, M., Yildiz, E.P., Uzunboylu, H.: Online authentic learning self-efficacy: a scale development. Qual. Quant. 52(Suppl 1), 639–649 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0641-1CrossRef

Timms, C., Fishman, T., Godineau, A., Granger, J., Sibanda, T.: Psychological engagement of university students: learning communities and family relationships. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ 10(3), 243–255 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2017-0107CrossRef

Tuckman, B.W.: Relations of academic procrastination, rationalizations, and performance in a web course with deadlines. Psychol. Rep. 96(3), 1015–1021 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.96.3c.1015-1021CrossRef

van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., Segers, M.: Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educ. Res. Rev. 6(2), 95–108 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003

Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Larsen, R., Rogers, J.: Temporal flexibility, gender, and online learning completion. Dist. Educ. 42(1), 22–36 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869523

Vermunt, J.D.: Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. High. Educ. 49(3), 205–234 (2005)CrossRef

Wang, M.T., Willett, J.B., Eccles, J.S.: The assessment of school engagement: examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. J. Sch. Psychol. 49(4), 465–480 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001CrossRef

Watson, W.R., Yu, J.H., Watson, S.L.: Perceived attitudinal learning in a self-paced versus fixed-schedule MOOC. Educ. Media Int. 55(2), 170–181 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1484044CrossRef

Weiser, E.B.: Gender differences in internet use patterns and internet application preferences: a two-sample comparison. Cyberpsychology 3(2), 167–178 (2000)CrossRef

Williams, K.M., Stafford, R.E., Corliss, S.B., Reilly, E.D.: Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in massive open online courses. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 126, 433–442 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.014CrossRef

Wold, H.: Partial least squares. In S. Kotz e N. Johnson (Eds.). Enc. of Stat. Scien. John Wiley & Sons (1985)

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. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2(3), 23–33 (2015)

Yukselturk, E., Bulut, S.: Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. J. Educ. Techno. Soc. 12(3), 12–22 (2009)

You, J.W.: Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. Internet High Educ. 29, 23–30 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.11.003CrossRef

Zhao, C.M., Kuh, G.D., Carini, R.M.: A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. J. Higher Educ. 76(2), 209–231 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11778911CrossRef

Title: Assessing heterogeneity in MOOC student performance through composite-based path modelling
Authors: Davino Cristina
Lamberti Giuseppe
Vistocco Domenico
Publication date: 13-10-2023
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality & Quantity / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0033-5177
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7845
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01760-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

Does poverty respond asymmetrically to financial development? Evidence from India using asymmetric cointegration and causality tests

Auto/biographical research on old Mexican women: a methodological and reflexive account

The effect of research intensity on total factor productivity in OECD countries during 1890–2018: evidence from a new Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood estimation approach

Modelling labour productivity and the role of research intensity in 129 years: evidence from a new dynamic instrumental variable estimation approach

Toward sustainable water quality monitoring systems using particle swarm, Ant Colony, and Tabu Search optimization methods

Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method

Premium Partner