Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Computers in Education
Erschienen in: Journal of Computers in Education 3/2018

18.07.2018

The moderating effects of discipline on the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with MOOCs

verfasst von: Junyi Li, Yun Tang, Meng Cao, Xiangen Hu

Erschienen in: Journal of Computers in Education | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with massive open online courses (MOOCs). We collected data from a large MOOC community in China (https://​mooc.​guokr.​com/​), which included 11 platforms, 321 courses, and over 13,000 ratings. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to analyze the relationship among the number of asynchronous discussion postings, disciplines, and satisfaction levels. The results indicated that asynchronous discussion significantly predicted learners’ satisfaction with MOOCs and that discipline moderated the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction. Specifically, science and technology courses showed a significantly different slope when compared with humanities courses. These results imply that asynchronous discussion plays an important role in predicting satisfaction with MOOCs in China. Asynchronous discussion may have diverse effects on course satisfaction in different disciplines. Therefore, instructors should pay attention to the characteristics of their specific disciplines when organizing and monitoring asynchronous discussions.
Vorheriger Artikel Effects of friendship relations and gender differences on classroom-based surrogate competitive learning
Nächster Artikel Understanding and predicting academic performance through cloud computing adoption: a perspective of technology acceptance model

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 "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

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
Literatur
Alario-Hoyos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado Kloos, C., & Parada, G. (2016). Who are the top contributors in a MOOC? Relating participants’ performance and contributions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 232–243.CrossRef
Andersen, K. R., Garp, K., Nellemann, K., Nielsen, F. M., & ORngreen, R. (2014). A framework for the analysis of collaborative and interactive elements in MOOCs. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference on e-Learning, Denmark.
Baranon, R., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45, 36–36.CrossRef
Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 245–253.CrossRef
Brint, S., & Cantwell, A. M. (2010). Undergraduate time use and academic outcomes: results from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey 2006. Teachers College Record, 112, 2441–2470.
Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2008). The two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement. Research in Higher Education, 49, 383–402.CrossRef
Chandrasekaran, M., Ragupathi, K., Kan, M., Tan, B. (2015). Towards feasible instructor intervention in MOOC discussion forums. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth International Conference on Information Science (pp. 2483–2491). Fort Worth, TX, USA: Association for Information Systems.
Cheng, C. K., Pare, D. E., Collimore, L. M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56, 253–261.CrossRef
Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, A. M., & Hartmann, B. (2014). Chatrooms in MOOCs: all talk and no action. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 127–136). ACM.
De Lange, P., Suwardy, T., & Mavondo, F. (2003). Integrating a virtual learning environment into an introductory accounting course: determinants of student motivation. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 12, 1–14.CrossRef
Dressel, P. I., & Marcus, D. (1982). Education as a humanizing experience. In P. I. Dressel & D. Marcus (Eds.), On teaching and learning in college: Reemphasizing the rules of learners and the disciplines (pp. 32–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A., & McNamara, R. (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21, 431–449.CrossRef
Ehlers, U. (2004). Quality in e-learning. The learner as a key quality assurance category. European Journal of Vocational Training, 29, 3–15.
Evans, B. J., Baker, R. B., & Dee, T. S. (2016). Persistence Patterns in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Journal of Higher Education, 87, 206–242.CrossRef
Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 374–380.CrossRef
Graesser, C. A., McNamara, S. D., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. Q. (2004). Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.CrossRef
Gu, X. Q., Hu, Y. L., & Cai, H. Y. (2013). Appeal and response to the development of MOOCs’ localization in China. Journal of Distance Education, 5, 3–11. (in Chinese).
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Howell, G. F., & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most? Innovative Higher Education, 37, 215–226.CrossRef
Hu, P. J. H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision Support Systems, 53, 782–792.CrossRef
Iyengar, S. S., Pangburn, B. E., & Mathews, R. C. (2000). Web-based multimedia development techniques for the instruction of abstract concepts in computer science. Multimedia Software Engineering, 2000. Proceedings. International Symposium on (pp. 419–426). IEEE.
Jiang, S. S. (2016). The relationship between disciplines and student involvement of research university undergraduate. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Hunan University, China.
Kane, K. (2004). Quality matters: Inter-institutional quality assurance in online learning. Sloan-C View: Perspectives in Quality Online Education, 3, 136–146.
Kelsey, K. D., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, K. E. (2002). Agriculture education at a distance: Let’s hear from the students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43, 24–32.CrossRef
Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 97, 116–128.CrossRef
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & Osland, J. (1990). Organizational behavior: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. Educause Review, 48, 62–63.
Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
Kress, A. M. (2006). Identifying what matters to students: Improving satisfaction and defining priorities at Santa Fe Community College. In J. A. Seybert (Ed.), Benchmarking: An essential tool for assessment, improvement, and accountabiliy. New Directions for Community Colleges (pp. 37–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kulasekara, G., Jayatilleke, B., & Coomaraswarmy, U. (2011). Learner perceptions on instructional design of multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 26, 113–126.CrossRef
Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14, 158–163.CrossRef
Li, Q., & Liu, N. (2015). Towards a MOOC quality assurance framework. Open Education Research, 21, 66–73.
Mao, C., Yu, H., Shi, J., Cai, T., & Yang, B. (2017). Automated interactive visualization on abstract concepts in computer science. GSTF Journal of Computing, 5, 19–23.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48.CrossRef
Nkuyubwatsi, B. (2013). Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective. Paper presented at the European Conference on eLearning, Nice, France.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54, 222–229.CrossRef
Perera, L., & Richardson, P. (2010). Students’ use of online academic resources within a course web site and its relationship with their course performance: An exploratory study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 19, 587–600.CrossRef
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond students’ perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 6, 21–40.
Pike, G., & Killian, T. S. (2001). Reported gains in student learning: Do academic disciplines make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 42, 429–454.CrossRef
Russo, T. C., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 54–62.
Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderation. The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd.
Song, L., & McNary, S. W. (2011). Understanding students’ online interaction: Analysis of discussion board postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10, 1–14.
Sternberg, J. R., & Williams, M. W. (2012). Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Beijing: China Machine Press.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.CrossRef
Willging, A. P., & Johnson, D. S. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 105–118.
Xing, W. L., & Goggins, S. (2016). Building models explaining student participation behavior in asynchronous online discussion. Computers & Education, 94, 241–251.CrossRef
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 54. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Yang, D., Piergallini, M., Howley, I., & Rose, C. (2014). Forum thread recommendation for massive open online courses. In Stamper, J., Pardos, Z., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. (pp. 257–260). London, UK: International Educational Data Mining Society.
Zhao, M. C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115–138.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The moderating effects of discipline on the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with MOOCs
verfasst von
Junyi Li
Yun Tang
Meng Cao
Xiangen Hu
Publikationsdatum
18.07.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Computers in Education / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 2197-9987
Elektronische ISSN: 2197-9995
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0112-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Journal of Computers in Education 3/2018 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Students’ multiple intelligences in video-assisted learning environments

OriginalPaper

Using iPad-mediated recordings to offer contingent feedback and introduce pre-service teachers to the epistemology of the teaching practice

OriginalPaper

Effects of friendship relations and gender differences on classroom-based surrogate competitive learning

OriginalPaper

Understanding and predicting academic performance through cloud computing adoption: a perspective of technology acceptance model

OriginalPaper

Comparing types of mathematics apps used in primary school classrooms: an exploratory analysis