1. bookVolume 19 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Exploring the Factors Associated with MOOC Engagement, Retention and the Wider Benefits for Learners

Published Online: 06 Apr 2017
Volume & Issue: Volume 19 (2016) - Issue 2 (December 2016)
Page range: 112 - 129
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have and continue to change the way in which nontraditional learners’ access education. Although the free element of these has been linked to low completion rates due to no invested interest, the MOOC platform enables innovative technologies and practices to be trialled. Therefore, rather than attributing varied intentions of learners for high drop-out rates, it is suggested that an increase in completion can be achieved through more focussed pedagogical practices. In this way, it is necessary to understand the wider benefits of MOOC engagement for learners and what factors are key to their engagement and retention. The current research qualitatively analysed open feedback obtained from learners that corresponded to their goals of course participation. The feedback was also matched to categorical data that related to initial course intentions, the value of course materials and activities, the preferred extent of instructor interaction, unit completion and their overall rating of the MOOC. Thematic analysis revealed eight key themes that can be linked to engagement and wider benefits of course participation and widely related to professional and educational development, for example, supplementary learning for undergraduate students. Moreover, the MOOC appeared to have encouraged learners to revaluate their perspectives of and attitudes towards Dementia and those diagnosed with it, demonstrating another key element of this course. The open feedback revealed that quality assured MOOCs have significant impact on the lives of enrolled learners and pedagogical design and advances in these courses are considered, particularly in relation to collaborative learning. Finally, the application of MOOCs to wider learning and teaching at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is discussed, with emphasis placed on the advantages of readily available resources and scope for scholarly activity.

1. Caufield, M., Collier, A., & Halawa, S. (2013). Rethinking online community in MOOCs used for blended learning. Educause Review Online, 1-11.Search in Google Scholar

2. DeBoer, J., Ho, A., Stump, G., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “course:” reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74-84.10.3102/0013189X14523038Search in Google Scholar

3. Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative Methods in Educational Research: The role of numbers.Search in Google Scholar

4. Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal (Online First).10.3102/0002831215584621Search in Google Scholar

5. Guardia, L., Maina, M., & Sangra, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33.Search in Google Scholar

6. Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs.10.1145/2556325.2566247Search in Google Scholar

7. Hadi, S. M., & Gagen, P. (2016). New model for measuring MOOCs completion rates. Paper presented at the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/20434486/New_model_for_measuring_MOOCs_completion_ratesSearch in Google Scholar

8. Hadi, S. M., & Rawson, R. (2016). Driving learner engagement and completion within MOOCs: a case for structured learning support. Paper presented at the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hew, K. F. (2014). Promoting engagement in online courses: what strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology (Online First).Search in Google Scholar

10. Hone, K. S., & El Said, G, R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Computers and Education, 98, 157-168.10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016Search in Google Scholar

11. Jansen, D., & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. Status report based on a mapping survey conducted in October - December 2014. EADTU. Retrieved from http://www.eadtu.eu/documents/Publications/OEenM/Institutional_MOOC_strategies_in_Europe.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

12. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. Educause Review.Search in Google Scholar

13. Leach, M., Hadi, S. M., & Bostock, A. (2016). Supporting diverse learner goals through modular design and micro-learning. Paper presented at the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit. London: Continuum, made easy.Search in Google Scholar

14. Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-563.10.1177/1052562904271199Search in Google Scholar

15. Petronzi, D., Hadi, S. M., & Leach, M. (2016). Do self-assigned learning intentions reflect upon or predict MOOC engagement? Unpublished Research Paper.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo