Top

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Published in:

30-12-2022

Investigating what learners value in marketing MOOCs: a content analysis

Authors: Moon-Heum Cho, Tianxiao Yang, Zhijuan Niu, Jae Kum Kim

Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education | Issue 1/2024

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate learners’ experiences in marketing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The comments of 255 learners, collected from three top-rated marketing MOOCs, were analyzed with MAXQDA, a content analysis software. The analysis of the 517 meanings (unit of analysis) that emerged from these comments produced five themes and 16 associated categories valued by learners, each comprising several categories as follows: (a) topic and its categories: value, content, difficulty level, knowledge gain, insight increase, and cost effectiveness; (b) instructor and its categories: characteristics, content delivery, and communication; (c) peers and its categories: interaction and evaluation; (d) instructional design and its categories: workload, structuredness, and assessment; and (e) learning resources and its categories: quality and diversity. Among the 517 meanings, 448 were positive and 69 were negative, suggesting that the learners approved of the current practices of teaching and learning in the three marketing MOOCs. Further analyses showed that content delivery in the instructor theme and content and value in the topic theme were of considerable importance from the learners’ perspectives with regard to positive experiences; however, peer evaluation in the peers theme and assessment in the instructional design theme were negatively viewed by the learners. Discussion is provided to interpret the findings.

previous article Correction to: An investigation of self-regulated learning in a novel MOOC platform

next article Adoption of open educational resources in the global south

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 "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

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

Ashton, S., & Davies, R. S. (2015). Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Education, 36(3), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081733CrossRef

Bonafini, F., Chae, C., Park, E., & Jablokow, K. (2017). How much does student engagement with videos and forums in a MOOC affect their achievement? Online Learning, 21(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1270CrossRef

Caskurlu, S., Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., & Kozan, K. (2021). The qualitative evidence behind the factors impacting online learning experiences as informed by the community of inquiry framework: A thematic synthesis. Computers & Education, 165, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104111CrossRef

Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q., & Tang, Y. (2019). Facilitating students’ interaction in MOOCs through timeline-anchored discussion. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(19), 1781–1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1574056CrossRef

Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1CrossRef

Chiu, T. K., & Hew, T. K. (2018). Factors influencing peer learning and performance in MOOC asynchronous online discussion forum. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3240CrossRef

Cho, M.-H., & Cho, Y. (2017). Self-regulation in three types of online interaction: A scale development. Distance Education, 38(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299563CrossRef

Creswell, J. W., Gutterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th eds.) Pearson: New York. pp 9–10

Deng, R., & Benckendorff, P. (2021). What are the key themes associated with the positive learning experience in MOOCs? An empirical investigation of learners’ ratings and reviews. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00244-3CrossRef

Egloffstein, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Employee perspectives on MOOCs for workplace learning. TechTrends, 61(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0127-3CrossRef

Egloffstein, M., Koegler, K., & Ifenthaler, D. (2019). Instructional quality of business MOOCs: Indicators and initial findings. Online Learning, 23(4), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2091CrossRef

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385CrossRef

Gomez, M. J., Calderón, M., Sánchez, V., García Clemente, F. J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2022). Large scale analysis of open MOOC reviews to support learners’ course selection. Expert Systems With Applications, 210, 118400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118400CrossRef

Hamori, M. (2017). The drivers of employer support for professional skill development in MOOCs. In C. Delgado kloos, P. Jermann, M. Pérez-Sanagustín, D. Seaton, & S. White (Eds.), Digital education: Out to the world and back to the campus (pp. 203–209). London: Springer.CrossRef

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9129-2CrossRef

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687CrossRef

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York: Routledge.

Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.001CrossRef

Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Singapore: Springer International Publishing.CrossRef

Li, X., Xu, X., Tao, S., & Sheng, C. (2022). A survey of postgraduates’ MOOC learning satisfaction based on the perspective of user experience. In E. C. K. Cheng, R. B. Koul, T. Wang, & X. Yu (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Emerging technologies, models and applications (pp. 257–272). Springer.

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 MOOC knowledge study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68, 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09682-3CrossRef

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089CrossRef

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659CrossRef

Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2013). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation (5th ed.). Routledge.

Nanda, G., Douglas, K. A., Waller, D. R., Merzdorf, H. E., & Goldwasser, D. (2021). Analyzing large collections of open-ended feedback from MOOC learners using LDA topic modeling and qualitative analysis. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3064798CrossRef

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 10454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847CrossRef

Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Hernández-Correa, J., Gelmi, C., Hilliger, I., & Rodriguez, M. F. (2016). Does taking a MOOC as a complement for remedial courses have an effect on my learning outcomes? A pilot study on calculus. In K. Verbert, M. Sharples, & T. Klobučar (Eds.), Adaptive and adaptable learning (pp. 221–233). Springer.CrossRef

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Shah, D. (2021). By the numbers: MOOCS in 2021. Class Central. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2021/

Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C., McDade, J., Pillutla, V. S., Zhou, X., & Giabbanelli, P. J. (2017). The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3CrossRef

Williamson, K., & Johanson, G. (Eds.). (2018). Research methods: Information, systems, and contexts. New York: Chandos Publishing.

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 & Development, 65, 1195–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9513-6CrossRef

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 308–319). Libraries Unlimited.

Zhu, M., Bonk, C., & Sari, A. R. (2018). Instructor experiences designing MOOCs in higher education: Pedagogical, resource, and logistical considerations and challenges. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 204–241. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1495CrossRef

Title: Investigating what learners value in marketing MOOCs: a content analysis
Authors: Moon-Heum Cho
Tianxiao Yang
Zhijuan Niu
Jae Kum Kim
Publication date: 30-12-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1042-1726
Electronic ISSN: 1867-1233
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09347-w

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 "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Using networked learning to improve learning analytics implementation

Introduction to special section: learning analytics as part of the higher education ecosystem

An investigation of self-regulated learning in a novel MOOC platform

Using social media as e-Portfolios to support learning in higher education: a literature analysis

Adoption of open educational resources in the global south

Wild brooms and learning analytics

Premium Partner