Despite providing advanced coursework online to learners around the world, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have had notoriously low completion rates. Self-regulated learning (SRL) frames strategies that students can use to enhance motivation and promote their engagement, persistence, and performance self-monitoring. Understanding which SRL subprocesses are most relevant to the MOOC learning context can guide course designers and instructors on how to incorporate key SRL aspects into the design and delivery of MOOCs. Through surveying 643 MOOC students using the Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ), the present study sought to understand the differences in the use of SRL between those who completed their course and those who did not. MOOC completers were found to have significantly higher applications of one SRL specific subprocess, namely goal setting. Additional SRL subprocesses of task interest/values, causal attribution, time management, self-efficacy, and goal-orientation also emerged from an analysis of open-ended responses as key contributors to course completion. The findings from this study provide further support regarding the role of SRL in MOOC student performance and offer insight into learners’ perceptions on the importance of SRL subprocesses in reaching course completion.
- MOOC completion,
- massive open online course,
- online self-regulated learning questionnaire,
- goal setting,
- self-regulated learning
- Agarwal, A. (2015, April 22). Reimagine freshman year with the global freshman academy [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.edx.org/reimagine-freshman-year-global-freshman/
- Allen, I., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online learning in the United States. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
- Barak M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
- Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S.-L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005
- Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Steaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(1), 13-25. Retrieved from http://www.rpajournal.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SF2.pdf
- Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
- Chang, H. -Y., Wang, C. -Y., Lee, M. -H., Wu, H. -K., Liang, J. -C., Lee, S. W. -Y.,... Tsai, C. -C. (2015). A review of features of technology-supported learning environments based on participants’ perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 223-237. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.042
- Chuang, I., & Ho, A. (2016, December 23). HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses - Fall 2012-Summer 2016. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2889436
- Cleary, T. J. (2018). The self-regulated learning guide: Teaching students to think in the language of strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.
- DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74-84. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14523038
- Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
- Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
- Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4, 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633
- Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Gilllani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004
- Gregori, E. B., Zhang, J., Galván-Fernández, C., & Fernández-Navarro, F. d. A. (2018). Learner support in MOOCs: Identifying variables linked to completion. Computers & Education, 122, 153-168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.014
- Hansen, J. D., & Reich, J. (2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350(6265), 1245-1248.
- Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
- Hsieh, H. -F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
- Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 133-160. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
- Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 122, 9-22. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013
- Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18-33. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
- Knox, J. (2013). Digital culture clash: “Massive” education in the e-learning and digital cultures MOOC. Distance Education, 35(2), 164-177. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917704
- Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
- McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf
- Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in massive open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.005
- Nawrot, I., & Doucet, A. (2014). Building engagement for MOOC students: Introducing support for time management on online learning platforms. In C. -W. Chung, A. Broder, K. Shim, & T. Suel (Eds.), Proceedings of the companion publication of the 23rd international conference on world wide web (pp. 1077-1082). doi: 10.1145/2567948.2580054
- Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
- Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Picciano2002.pdf
- Reich, J. (December, 2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/12/mooc-completion-and-retention-in-the-context-of-student-intent
- Robin, B. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220-228. doi: 10.1080/00405840802153916
- Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk, (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 125-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Shah, D. (2018, January 18). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2017 [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017/
- Straumsheim, C. (2016, April 27). Georgia Tech’s next steps [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/georgia-tech-plans-next-steps-online-masters-degree-computer-science
- Tsai, Y. -h., Lin, C. -h., Hong, J. c., & Tai, K. h. (2018). The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education, 121, 18-29. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.011
- Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2018). Grit and intention: Why do learners complete MOOCs? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 21-42. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3393
- Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001
- Williams, V. (n.d.). Online readiness assessment [Web survey]. Retrieved from https://pennstate.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7QCNUPsyH9f012B?s=246aa3a5c4b64bb386543eab834f8e75&Q_JFE=qdg
- Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education (White Paper Serial No. 2013: WP01). Boston, MA: CETIS. doi: 10.13140/2.1.5072.8320
- Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-0618.104.22.1689
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676