Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Typology of motivation and learning intentions of users in MOOCs: the MOOCKNOWLEDGE study

Abstract

Participants in massive open online courses show a wide variety of motivations. This has been studied with the elaboration of classifications of the users according to their behavior throughout the course. In this study, we aimed to classify the participants in the MOOCs according to the initial motivations and intentions, before long interaction with the online device. Using a survey of 1768 participants in 6 MOOCs, we classify the participants according to: internal motives, external motives and intention of persistence. Three profiles of involvement in the course were identified: poorly motivated (16.7%), self referential (28.8%) and highly committed (54.5%). All three profiles showed significant differences in self-reported learning experiences at the end of the course. The intensity of the initial motivation was positively related to the satisfaction and perceived quality of the training experience. According to our analysis, identifying motivational profiles before starting the course allows to diagnose in advance the educational use and the diversity of individual training itineraries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some of the most well-known platforms emerge at the university level, such as Coursera <http://www.coursera.org/> and Udacity <https://www.udacity.com/> at Stanford University, and edX <http://www.edx.org> at MIT and Harvard University. Subsequently, they have extended their services to other universities.

  2. 2.

    Literature has distinguished between xMOOC, which gives priority to student-content interaction, and cMOOC, which promotes student–student interaction. The xMOOCs focus on content transmission and often resort to video lessons followed by brief exams. The cMOOCs are based on the active role of the students in the learning process and emphasize the autonomy, creativity, and participation of learners, who deploy their capacity to generate new content.

  3. 3.

    In some cases, it has been observed that the payment of an enrollment fee in order to obtain a certificate attesting the completion of the course may function as a protective element of abandonment (Alario-Hoyos et al. 2017).

  4. 4.

    The combination with face-to-face study groups seems to promote a sense of community and the exchange of social support, contributes to participant motivation, and reduces dropout rates (Bulger et al. 2015; Xing et al. 2015; de Freitas et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2015).

  5. 5.

    Although the cluster analysis technique has been used previously to classify learners in MOOCS (Cabedo Gallén and Tovar Caro 2018), the innovation that we propose with our study consists of the classification according to the learning intentions of the participants.

  6. 6.

    It is the only profile with more men than women, against the gender distribution of the sample. Specifically, more than half are men, while for the whole sample it does not reach 46%. However, for the group of participants, no statistically significant differences were observed with respect to gender (Chi square = 4.892, p = .087).

  7. 7.

    This observation corresponds to ten different comparisons of means, in all cases with a significance level of ANOVA of p < .0001, and post hoc comparisons with the Scheffé test of p < .05. As regards the 30 subsequent post hoc comparisons, only one is not significant: the one corresponding to the item "digital competences previously acquired in MOOCS", with respect to conglomerates 2 and 3.

  8. 8.

    In the case of accreditation, no significant differences are observed if we analyze each indicator of obtaining certificates separately, either relative to the participation in the course (Chi-square = 1.621, p = .445) or the completion of the course (Chi-square = 1.621, p = .445).

References

  1. Aldenderfer, M., & Blashfield, R. (1984). Cluster analysis. A SAGE University Paper. Newbury Park.

  2. Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado, C., & Férnandez-Panadero, C. (2017). Understanding learners’ motivation and learning strategies in MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,18(3), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2996.

  3. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2014). (Dis)organization and success in an economics MOOC. American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings,104(5), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.514.

  4. Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. (2015). The real component of virtual learning: Motivations for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialised countries. Information, Communication & Society,18(10), 1200–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2015.1061571.

  5. Cabedo Gallén, R., & Tovar Caro, E. (2018). A benchmarking study of K-Means and Kohonen self-organizing maps applied to features of mooc participants. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 21(1).

  6. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Kreijns, K., Kalz, M., & Punie, Y. (2017). Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC participation? Evidence from a cross-course survey. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,29(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9123-z.

  7. Cesareni, D., Micale, F., Cosmelli, C., Fiore, F. P., & Nicolò, R. (2014). MOOCs e interazioni collaborative: l`esperienza in Sapienza. ECPS: Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies,10, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2014-010-cesa.

  8. Cisel, M., Mano, M., Bachelet, R., & Silberzahn, P. (2015). A tale of two MOOCs: Analyzing long-term course dynamics. In EMOOCs: The Third European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit (191-198).

  9. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education,2012(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18.

  10. De Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,32(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130.

  11. De Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology,46(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268.

  12. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. In CHI 2011: Workshop on Gamification (12-15).

  13. European Commission (EC). (2013). Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources. Brussels, Belgium.

  14. Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  15. Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal,52(5), 925–955. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584621.

  16. Henderikx, M., Kreijns, K., Castaño Muñoz, J., & Kalz, M. (2019). Factors influencing the pursuit of personal learning goals in MOOCs. Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600364.

  17. Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention–behavior gap. Distance Education,38(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006.

  18. Hew, K. F. (2014). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology,47(2), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235.

  19. Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., & Flot, J. B. (2017). Different underlying motivations and abilities predict student versus teacher persistence in an online course. Educational Technology Research and Development,65(6), 1471–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9528-z.

  20. Hill, P. (2013). Emerging student patterns in MOOCs: A graphical view [Blog post]. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://mfeldstein.com/emerging_student_patterns_in_moocs_graphical_view.

  21. Inamorato dos Santos, A., Nascimbeni, F., Bacsich, P., Atenas, J., Aceto, S. Burgos, D., & Punie, Y. (2017). Policy Approaches to Open EducationCase Studies from 28 EU Member States (OpenEdu Policies). EUR 28776 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-73495-3. https://doi.org/10.2760/283135, JRC107713.

  22. Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,16(5), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222.

  23. Jansen, D., Schuwer, R., Teixeira, A., & Aydin, C. H. (2015). Comparing MOOC adoption strategies in Europe: Results from the HOME project survey. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,16(6), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2154.

  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651.

  25. Kahan, T., Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2017). Types of participant behavior in a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,18(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3087.

  26. Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., Walhout, J., Castaño-Munoz, J., Espasa, A., & Tovar, E. (2015). Setting-up a European cross-provider data collection on open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,16(6), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2150.

  27. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In LAK’13: Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170–179). https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460330.

  28. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. Educause Review,48(3), 62–63.

  29. Literat, I. (2015). Implications of massive open online courses for higher education: Mitigating or reifying educational inequities? Higher Education Research & Development,34(6), 1164–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024624.

  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.

  31. Liu, M., Kang, J., & McKelroy, E. (2015). Examining learners’perspective of taking a MOOC: Reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International,52(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1053289.

  32. Loizzo, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). MOOCocracy: The learning culture of massive open online courses. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(6), 1013–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9444-7.

  33. 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.

  34. Maya Jariego, I., Almakari, A., Berrada, K., Burgos, D., Cachia, R., Nascimbeni, F., Stefanelli, C., Tabacco, A., Villar-Onrubia, D., Wimpenny, K. (2018). Readiness to adopt open educational resources in the MENA region: The OpenMed case. World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES). Fundación Tres Culturas. Sevilla (Spain), 16–22 July 2018.

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

  36. Moe, R. (2015). The brief & expansive history (and future) of the MOOC: Why two divergent models share the same name. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning,2(1), 24.

  37. Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., et al. (2014). Moving through MOOCs understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher,43(9), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14562423.

  38. Radford, A. W., Robles, J., Cataylo, S., Horn, L., Thornton, J., & Whitfiel, K. (2014). The employer potential of MOOCs: A mixed-methods study of human resource professionals` thinking on MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,15(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1842.

  39. Rambe, P., & Moeti, M. (2017). Disrupting and democratising higher education provision or entrenching academic elitism: Towards a model of MOOCs adoption at African universities. Educational Technology Research and Development,65(3), 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9500-3.

  40. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 68–78.

  41. Schmid, L., Manturuk, K., Simpkins, I., Goldwasser, M., & Whitfield, K. E. (2015). Fulfilling the promise: Do MOOCs reach the educationally underserved? Educational Media International,52(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1053288.

  42. Tabaa, Y., & Medouri, A. (2013). LASyM: A learning analytics system for MOOCs. IJACSA International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,4(5), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2013.040516.

  43. Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(6), 1273–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9457-2.

  44. Xing, W., Chen, X., Stein, J., & Marcinkowski, M. (2016). Temporal predication of dropouts in MOOCs: Reaching the low hanging fruit through stacking generalization. Computers in Human Behavior,58, 119–129.

  45. Yang, M., Shao, Z., Liu, Q., & Liu, C. (2017). Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development,65(5), 1195–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9513-6.

  46. Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence Teleoperators and virtual environments,15(3), 309–329.

  47. Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education,95, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.003.

  48. Zhang, Q., Peck, K. L., Hristova, A., Jablokow, K. W., Hoffman, V., Park, E., et al. (2016). Exploring the communication preferences of MOOC learners and the value of preference-based groups: Is grouping enough? Educational Technology Research and Development,64(4), 809–837.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The data of this article were generated within the Moocknowledge project of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). The participation of the University of Seville was carried out through the project FIUS (Grant No. 3063/0227).

Author information

Correspondence to Isidro Maya-Jariego.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The views expressed in this article are purely those of the authors and should not be regarded as the official position of the European Commission.

Appendices

Appendix I

List of items to construct the three indicators used as criterion variables in the cluster analysis

Internal motivations (4 items)
 I participate in a MOOC because it is my preferred way to acquire knowledge and skills
 I participate in a MOOC because it suits my tendency to try new things out
 I participate in a MOOC because it suits my ambition to go with the times
 I participate in a MOOC because it aligns with how I want to learn
Extrinsic motivations (5 items)
 I participate in a MOOC because it is expected of me
 I participate in a MOOC because otherwise I will get a lot of troubles
 I participate in a MOOC because it will give me a certificate
 I participate in a MOOC because I can complete my study program
 I participate in a MOOC because it allows me to get good marks
Intention of persistence (5 items)
 I will make every effort to take and complete one or more MOOCs in the next 6 months
 I will try to take and complete one or more MOOCs in the next 6 months
 I will be persistent to take and complete one or more MOOCs in the next 6 months
 I do the best I can to take and complete one or more MOOCs in the next 6 months
 I will go to the extreme to take and complete one or more MOOCs in the next 6 months
  1. Each indicator is the average of the items that comprise it. Internal and extrinsic motivations are connected to self-determination theory, while intention of persistence is connected to the theory of reasoned action

Appendix II

Table of correlations of the variables of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of self-determination

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Beliefs—positive outcomes               
2. Beliefs—negative outcomes .179**              
3. Evaluation positive outcomes .769** .181**             
4. Evaluation negative outcomes .370** .448** .398**            
5. Descriptive normative behaviour .273** .127** .268** .199**           
6. Descriptive normative beliefs .565** .165** .522** .318** .276**          
7. Descriptive normative control .217** .303** .199** .225** .169** .339**         
8. Intrinsic motivation .394** − .066** .288** .060* .044 .176** .065**        
9. Integrated motivation .590** .057* .503** .231** .176** .324** .145** .526**       
10. Identified motivation .651** .027 .574** .225** .185** .373** .131** .574** .703**      
11. Introjected motivation .373** .350** .324** .256** .146** .291** .401** .262** .341** .369**     
12. Extrinsic motivation .624** .263** .582** .300** .236** .453** .366** .257** .451** .485** .543**    
13. Absence of motivation − .068** .362** − .028 .189** .082** .006 .226** − .223** − .131** − .194** .198** .080**   
14. Intention (readiness) .315** − .116** .261** .011 .044 .192** − .021 .488** .433** .519** .151** .245** − .234**  
15. Intention (persistence) .337** − .036 .282** .052* .021 .214** .055* .516** .434** .538** .252** .303** − .221** .824**
  1. *p < .05, **p < .01

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maya-Jariego, I., Holgado, D., González-Tinoco, E. et al. Typology of motivation and learning intentions of users in MOOCs: the MOOCKNOWLEDGE study. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 203–224 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09682-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Open education
  • Massive open online courses
  • Types of participants
  • Initial motivations
  • Self-regulation skills
  • Learning intention
  • Cluster analysis