nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

22.04.2020

Development and validation of the MOOC success scale (MOOC-SS)

verfasst von: Nour Awni Albelbisi

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The objective of this study is to develop and validate the MOOC Success Scale (MOOC-SS) in the Malaysian context. Further, this study ascertains the influence of MOOC success factors on learner satisfaction. Based on an elaborate literature study, six factors related to MOOC success were derived: (1) system quality, (2) information quality, (3) service quality, (4) attitude, (5) course quality, and (6) satisfaction. The data were collected from 1000 undergraduate students from 5 public universities in Malaysia with a return of 622 responses. The instrument was tested in several ways: (a) review the literature, (b) formulating hypotheses (c) items generation, (d) expert opinion, and (e) pilot test. Thereafter, the scale’s reliability and validity were calculated, which appeared to be excellent. The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) empirically confirmed that the MOOC success scale with six factors and 33 items is strong enough to recommend its use in MOOC settings. Further, the finding of the predictive validity indicated that system quality, attitude, and course quality appeared to predict satisfaction toward MOOC. The instrument can be used by academicians, practitioners, and policymakers to monitor the MOOC success factors. Further research would be needed to generalize this research to other populations.

Vorheriger Artikel Developing intercultural communicative competence by the means of telecollaboration

Nächster Artikel Parents’ beliefs about and associations to their elementary children’s home technology usage

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Ajoye, M. B., & Nwagwu, W. E. (2014). Information systems user satisfaction: A survey of the postgraduate school portal, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, paper 1192.

Albelbisi, N. A. (2019). The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment. Education and Information Technologies, 1-18.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2012). A model to measure e-learning systems success. In Measuring organizational information systems success: New technologies and practices (pp. 293-317). IGI global.

Aparicio, M., & Bacao, F. (2013, July). E-learning concept trends. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication (pp. 81-86). ACM.

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.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34.CrossRef

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view (pp. 1–76). York: The Higher Education Academy.

Chang, R. I., Hung, Y. H., & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 528–541.CrossRef

Creelman, A., Ehlers, U.-D., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality – An account of the EFQUEL MOOC quality project. International Journal for Innovation and Quality and in Learning (INNOQUAL), September (3), 78-87

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Downes, S. (2016). The quality of massive open online courses [personal page post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/66145

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, 125–143 Retrieved from https://www.informingscience.org/Publications/2250.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef

Gamage, D., Fernando, S., & Perera, I. (2015). 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). IEEE. 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.MathSciNetCrossRef

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics 19 step by step: A simple guide and reference (12th ed). Boston: Pearson.

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).

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Ronald, L. T. (2006a). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006b). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson 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.MATH

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001.CrossRef

Jansen, D., Rosewell, J., & Kear, K. (2017). Quality frameworks for MOOCs. In Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs (pp. 261–281). Springer, Berlin.

Kevan, J. M., Menchaca, M. P., & Hoffman, E. S. (2016). Designing MOOCs for success: A student motivation-oriented framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 274-278). ACM.

King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges, 426. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435620.n24.

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.CrossRef

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.CrossRef

Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14–24.

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.CrossRef

Lwoga, E. T. (2014). Critical success factors for the adoption of web-based learning management systems in Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 10(1), 4–21.

Manalo, J. M. A. (2014). An evaluation of participants’ levels of satisfaction and perceived learning regarding the MOOC in@ RAL platform. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 101–121.

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Nagashima, T. (2014). What makes open education thrive? Examination of factors contributing the success of open education initiatives. International Journal for Innovation and Quality and in Learning (INNOQUAL), September (3), 10-21.

Newman, I., Newman, D., & Newman, C. (2011). Writing research articles using mixed methods: methodological considerations to help you get published. In The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 191–208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1991). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ozkan, S., Koseler, R., & Baykal, N. (2009). Evaluating learning management systems: Adoption of hexagonal e-learning assessment model in higher education. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(2), 111–130.CrossRef

Parr, C. (2013). MOOCs completion rates “below 7%”, Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/moocs-completion-ratesbelow-7/2003710.

Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2005). Using the SPSS mixed procedure to fit cross-sectional and longitudinal multilevel models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 714–741.MathSciNetCrossRef

Poy, R., & Gonzales-Aguilar, A. (2014). MOOC success factors: Some critical considerations. RISTI-Revista Iberica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informacao, 1, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.4304/risti.e1.105-118.CrossRef

Rai, L., & Chunrao, D. (2016). Influencing factors of success and failure in MOOC and general analysis of learner behavior. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 262–268.CrossRef

Rhema, A., & Miliszewska, I. (2014). Analysis of student attitudes towards e-learning: The case of engineering students in Libya. Issues in informing science and information Technology, 11(1), 169–190.CrossRef

Rivard, R. (2013). No-bid MOOCs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/17/MOOCs-spread-quickly-aided-no-bid-dealspublic-universities

Rosewell, J., & Jansen, D. (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 88–100.

Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A. T. H., Jafarkarimi, H., & Mei Hee, J. (2015). Exploring MOOC from education and information systems perspectives: A short literature review. Educational Review, 67(4), 505–518.CrossRef

Samarasinghe, S. M. (2012). E-learning systems success in an organisational context: A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy in management information Systems at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand (Doctoral dissertation, Massey University). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10179/4726

Sang, S., Lee, J. D., & Lee, J. (2010). E-government adoption in Cambodia: A partial least squares approach. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(2), 138–157.CrossRef

Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. A. (2014). A concise guide to market research. The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. Berlin: Springer.

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).

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.CrossRef

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics., 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education.

Walker, L., & Loch, B. (2014). Academics’ perceptions on the quality of MOOCs: An empirical study. INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 53–63.

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.CrossRef

Yang, H. H., & Su, C. H. (2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5).

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.CrossRef

Yepes-Baldó, M., Romeo, M., Martín, C., García, M. Á., Monzó, G., & Besolí, A. (2016). Quality indicators: Developing “MOOCs” in the european higher education area. Educational Media International, 53(3), 184–197.CrossRef

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2014). What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 44–48). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.23.

Zhao, H. (2016). Factors influencing self-regulation in E-learning 2.0: confirmatory factor model. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2C33K.

Titel: Development and validation of the MOOC success scale (MOOC-SS)
verfasst von: Nour Awni Albelbisi
Publikationsdatum: 22.04.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10186-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

To: -) or to ☺, that is the question: a study of students’ initial impressions of instructors’ paralinguistic cues

Effects of microworld game-based approach on neuromuscular disabled students learning performance in elementary basic science courses

Parental reports on digital devices use in infancy and early childhood

Pedagogical framework for environmental science

Acceptance of mobile phone by university students for their studies: an investigation applying UTAUT2 model

Exploring teachers’ increased knowledge of the potential of mobile phone use: pilot study reducing the difference between students’ and teachers’ ideas

Premium Partner