Understanding the determinants of learner engagement in MOOCs: An adaptive structuration perspective

Abstract As an innovative educational paradigm, the massive open online course (MOOC) has received extensive attention from both academia and industry. Extant literature has made much effort to investigate the technological supports of MOOCs but how learners understand and master these technologies is still unclear. Moreover, given the collaborative features (e.g. discussion forum and peer assessment) of MOOCs, it is vital to ascertain the mechanism through which group learners reach a consensus on the technology usage and thereby engage in MOOCs. To advance this line of research, the study proposes a theoretical model leveraging adaptive structuration theory. Specifically, we identify three contextualized factors (i.e., collaborative spirit, task interdependence, and social interaction ties) as the antecedents of consensus of appropriation. Through an online survey recruiting 374 Chinese University MOOC learners, this study demonstrates that collaborative spirit, task interdependence and social interaction ties are positively related to consensus of appropriation, which will facilitate commitment and learner engagement. In addition, commitment is also confirmed to enhance learner engagement. Implications and limitations are further discussed.

[1]  Rajeev Sharma,et al.  The Contingent Effects of Training, Technical Complexity, and Task Interdependence on Successful Information Systems Implementation , 2007, MIS Q..

[2]  K. Hew,et al.  Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges , 2014 .

[3]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  When Does Repository KMS Use Lift Performance? The Role of Alternative Knowledge Sources and Task Environments , 2016, MIS Q..

[4]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations , 1976 .

[5]  Mark Keil,et al.  CPOE-Enabled Coordination: Appropriation for Deep Structure Use and Impacts on Patient Outcomes , 2018, MIS Q..

[6]  Meina Zhu,et al.  A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014-2016) , 2018, Internet High. Educ..

[7]  S HoneKate,et al.  Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention , 2016 .

[8]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Aditya Johri,et al.  Needle in a haystack: Identifying learner posts that require urgent response in MOOC discussion forums , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[10]  John P. Meyer,et al.  AFFECTIVE, CONTINUANCE, AND NORMATIVE COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF ANTECEDENTS, CORRELATES, AND CONSEQUENCES , 2002 .

[11]  Katherine N. Lemon,et al.  Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions , 2010 .

[12]  Yajiong Xue,et al.  Employees’ Exploration of Complex Systems: An Integrative View , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Hyo-Jeong So,et al.  Examination of relationships among students' self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[14]  ChenYang-Hsueh,et al.  MOOC study group , 2015 .

[15]  OhChong,et al.  Beyond likes and tweets , 2017 .

[16]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory: , 1982 .

[17]  A. Bandura.  Social learning theory , 1977 .

[18]  Gloria Barczak,et al.  Customer relationship management processes: How faithful are business-to-business firms to customer profitability? , 2012 .

[19]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Factors, and Organizational Climate , 2005, MIS Q..

[20]  Nobuko Fujita,et al.  Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Min Peng,et al.  Social interaction in MOOCs: The mediating effects of immersive experience and psychological needs satisfaction , 2019, Telematics Informatics.

[22]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[23]  Martin Formanek,et al.  Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Yongqiang Sun,et al.  Technological environment, virtual experience, and MOOC continuance: A stimulus-organism-response perspective , 2020, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Zheng Xie,et al.  Bridging MOOC Education and Information Sciences: Empirical Studies , 2019, IEEE Access.

[26]  Kai H. Lim,et al.  Research Note - A Multilevel Analysis of the Effect of Group Appropriation on Collaborative Technologies Use and Performance , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  Yongqiang Sun,et al.  Understanding students' engagement in MOOCs: An integration of self-determination theory and theory of relationship quality , 2018, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[28]  M. Oliver,et al.  Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology , 2011, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  Han-fen Hu,et al.  Beyond likes and tweets: Consumer engagement behavior and movie box office in social media , 2017, Inf. Manag..

[30]  Pin-Ju Chen,et al.  MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[31]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students' learning performance in science courses , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[32]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[33]  Chee-Wee Tan,et al.  Towards a Model of Collaborative Intention: An Empirical Investigation of a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) , 2018, HICSS.

[34]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[35]  Nick H.M. van Dam,et al.  Felt and behavioral engagement in workgroups of professionals , 2013 .

[36]  Ghada R. El Said,et al.  Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Rachel Baker,et al.  The different relationships between engagement and outcomes across participant subgroups in Massive Open Online Courses , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Ling He,et al.  Effects of social-interactive engagement on the dropout ratio in online learning: insights from MOOC , 2018, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[39]  John P. Meyer,et al.  The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization , 1990 .

[40]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research , 2007, MIS Q..

[41]  Felix B. Tan,et al.  International Journal of Information Management the Mediating Role of Trust and Commitment on Members' Continuous Knowledge Sharing Intention: a Commitment-trust Theory Perspective , 2022 .

[42]  Alyssa Friend Wise,et al.  Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling , 2017, Internet High. Educ..

[43]  Rafi Nachmias,et al.  Active learners' characterization in MOOC forums and their generated knowledge , 2019, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[44]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  The Minnesota GDSS Research Project: Group Support Systems, Group Processes, and Outcomes , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Ghiyoung Im,et al.  Effects of cognitive and social factors on system utilization and performance outcomes , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[46]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Self‐categorisation, commitment to the group and group self‐esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity , 1999 .

[47]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Context counts: How learners' contexts influence learning in a MOOC , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[48]  Justin Reich,et al.  The MOOC pivot , 2019, Science.