nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

03.01.2019

The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment

verfasst von: Nour Awni Albelbisi

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As a crucial factor that affects the learning performance in MOOC, self-regulated learning (SRL) has elicited considerable interest. Self-regulated learners can manage their learning activities efficiently, however, researchers indicate that MOOC learners do not adequately self-regulate their learning. Thus, providing support to facilitate self-regulated learning skill is important. This study examines the quality factors that affecting self-regulated learning in MOOC environment. Using a structured questionnaire derived from the literature, data was collected from 1000 undergraduate students from 5 public universities in Malaysia. The questionnaire consisted of 2 sections. The first section collected the demographic data, the second section educed data about self-regulated learning, information quality, service quality and system quality. Through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) technique, the relationships between the quality factors and self-regulated learning were obtained. Statistical findings revealed that service quality factor influence self-regulated learning positively in MOOC. The findings provide by the study may give an empirically justified foundation for those who concerned to develop strategies for encouraging the adoption of MOOC.

Vorheriger Artikel Impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment and student performance on learning science concepts in kindergarten

Nächster Artikel Exploring the role of Facebook adoption and virtual environment loneliness on knowledge sharing behaviors in a Facebook learning community

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

Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.

Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., and Soar, J. (2011). Measuring e-learning system success (research in progress). In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2011, July) (pp. 1-15). Queensland University of Technology.

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). Hershey: Business Science Reference.

Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 146–151.

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.

Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions with achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2), 1–11.

Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61–80.

Barnes, C. (2013). MOOCs: The challenges for academic librarians. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 44(3), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.821048.CrossRef

Chen, C. M. (2009). Personalized E-learning system with self-regulated learning assisted mechanisms for promoting learning performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8816–8829.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In A. George (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295–336. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

Cho, M. H., & Kim, B. J. (2013). Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 69–75.

Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.MATH

Daniel, J., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2013). Turbulent times in tertiary education: Lessons for Bangladesh. Paper presented at the International Conference on Tertiary Education: Realities and Challenges, Daffodil University, Bangladesh.

de Waard, I. (2011). Explore a new learning frontier: MOOCs. Learning Solutions Magazine, 25. Retrieved from https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/721/explore-a-new-learning-frontiermoocs.

de Waard, I., Gallagher, M. S., Zelezny-Green, R., Czerniewicz, L., Downes, S., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Willems, J. (2014). Challenges for conceptualising EU MOOC for vulnerable learner groups. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014 (pp. 33–42). Retrieved July 11, 2017, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/40381/2/deWaardEtAl.pdf.

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.

Ehlers, U. D., Ossiannilsson, E., & Creelman, A. (2013). Week 1: MOOCs and Quality – Where are we – where do we go from here …? Retrieved from http://mooc.efquel.org/first-post-of-the-series/.

Freeze, R. D., Alshare, K. A., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2010). IS success model in ELearning context based on students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 173–184.

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. Retrieved on 25 Oct 2016 from http://bit.ly/2dwJ3ZE.

Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i5.4350.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.

Grimmelmann, J. (2014). Merchants of MOOCs, Seton Hall Law Review, 44(4). Retrieved on 1 Nov 2016 from http://bit.ly/2dZuRKL.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Jersey: Prentice Hall.

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

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

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

Harrell, I. L. (2008). Increasing the success of online students. Inquiry, 13(1), 36–44.

Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10959–10966.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in international marketing, 20, 277–319.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.CrossRef

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

Hood, N., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). Quality in MOOCs: Surveying the Terrain. Retrieved on October 21, 2017, from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2352/2015_QualityinMOOCs-Surveying-the-Terrain.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oasis.col.org_bitstream_handle_11599_2352_2015-5FQualityinMOOCs-2DSurveying-2Dthe-2DTerrain.pdf-3Fsequence-3D1-26isAllowed-3Dy&d=DwMFaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=8IEA8RSOvQ9oXtWAG1eT2mTMD_NJ-ANv3H9feUw_xMw&m=NEykeoku9Df9P6A_Hxc79bWQEVO9SxDPi7SqM72APoE&s=dMPWG8NHauBmL_a_EbffxvN-p4CAy6cF3HwsMgMCx6I&e=>.

Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners' contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, 83–91.

Hsu, Y. C., Ching, Y. H., Mathews, J. P., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Undergraduate students'self-regulated learning experience in web-based learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 109.

Hu, H., & Gramling, J. (2009). Learning strategies for success in a web-based course: A descriptive exploration. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 123.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601–614.

Jansen, D., Rosewell, J., & Kear, K. (2016). Quality Frameworks for MOOCs. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk & M.K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (LNET). (pp. 261–281) Aug 18, 2016. Berlin: Springer. Retrieved Jan 22, 2018, from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783662529232.

Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 57-66). ACM.

Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016). Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 101-104). ACM.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.MATH

Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19–38.

Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. K. (2008). The relationship of e-Learner's self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(1), 32–47.

Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 499–458.

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.

Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Designing MOOCs for professional learners: Tools and patterns to encourage self-regulated learning. eLearning Papers, 42, 38–45.

Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48.

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. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531.

Magen-Nagar, N., & Cohen, L. (2016). Learning strategies as a mediator for motivation and a sense of achievement among students who study in MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9492-y.CrossRef

Malik, M. W. (2010). Factors effecting learner’s satisfaction towards E-learning: A conceptual framework. OIDA. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(3), 77–82. Retrieved Aug 1, 2017, from http://www.ssrn.com/link/OIDA-Intl-Journal-Sustainable-Dev.html.

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.CrossRef

Matuga, J. M. (2009). Self-regulation, goal orientation, and academic achievement of secondary students in online university courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 4.

McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). In the open: The MOOC model for digital practice. Charlottetown, Canada: University of Prince Edward Island. Retrieved on May 18, 2017, from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf <https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__oerknowledgecloud.org_sites_oerknowledgecloud.org_files_MOOC-5FFinal.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=8IEA8RSOvQ9oXtWAG1eT2mTMD_NJ-ANv3H9feUw_xMw&m=NEykeoku9Df9P6A_Hxc79bWQEVO9SxDPi7SqM72APoE&s=4l0RP5X_miWmBTPRMCfrJ1um_aiFdcYz-p4toU57FCQ&e=>.

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159.

Musa, A. M., & Othman, M. O. (2012). Critical success factors in E-learning: An examination of technology and students factors. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology (IJAET), 3(2), 140–148.

Nawrot, I., & Doucet, A. (2014). Building engagement for MOOC students: Introducing support for time management on online learning platforms. Paper presented at the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference, Seoul, South Korea. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2580054.

Nordin, N., Norman, H., & Embi, M. A. (2015). Technology acceptance of massive open online courses in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 1–16.

Onah, D. F. O., & Sinclair, J. E. (2017). Assessing self-regulation of learning dimensions in a stand-alone MOOC platform. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 7(2), 4–21.

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.

Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236–263.

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.

Ramayah, T., & Lee, J. W. C. (2012). System characteristics, satisfaction and elearning usage: A structural equation model (SEM). The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 11(2), 196–206.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Hamburg, Germany: SmartPLS. Retrieved Aug 17, 2017, from http://www.smartpls.com.

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

Tella, A. (2011). Reliability and factor analysis of a blackboard course management system success: A scale development and validation in an educational context. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10, 55–80.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.MathSciNetMATH

Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 472–487.

Thirouard, M., Bernaert, O., Dhorne, L., Bianchi, S., Pidol, L., & Petit, Y. (2015). Learning by doing: Integrating a serious game in a MOOC to promote new skills. Proceedings Papers, 92.

Thomas, C. R., & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-concept clarity and students' learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101–119.

Wang, H. C., & Chiu, Y. F. (2011). Assessing e-learning 2.0 system success. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1790–1800.

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.

You, J. W., & Kang, M. (2014). The role of academic emotions in the relationship between perceived academic control and self-regulated learning in online learning. Computers in Education, 77, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.018.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.

Zhao, H. (2016). Factors influencing self-regulation in e-learning 2.0: Confirmatory factor model. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42, 2–22.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 311–328). New York: Routledge.

Titel: The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment
verfasst von: Nour Awni Albelbisi
Publikationsdatum: 03.01.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09855-2

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 2/2019

A case study on the collage art therapy for immigrant youths

Learning with digital video in second level schools in Ireland

One for all and all for one - towards a framework for collaboration support systems

Free doesn’t mean access to the Wi-Fi facility: The south African experience

A framework for smart academic guidance using educational data mining

Engineering assessment strata: A layered approach to evaluation spanning Bloom’s taxonomy of learning

Premium Partner