Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The moderating effects of discipline on the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with MOOCs

  • Published:
Journal of Computers in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with massive open online courses (MOOCs). We collected data from a large MOOC community in China (https://mooc.guokr.com/), which included 11 platforms, 321 courses, and over 13,000 ratings. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to analyze the relationship among the number of asynchronous discussion postings, disciplines, and satisfaction levels. The results indicated that asynchronous discussion significantly predicted learners’ satisfaction with MOOCs and that discipline moderated the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction. Specifically, science and technology courses showed a significantly different slope when compared with humanities courses. These results imply that asynchronous discussion plays an important role in predicting satisfaction with MOOCs in China. Asynchronous discussion may have diverse effects on course satisfaction in different disciplines. Therefore, instructors should pay attention to the characteristics of their specific disciplines when organizing and monitoring asynchronous discussions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado Kloos, C., & Parada, G. (2016). Who are the top contributors in a MOOC? Relating participants’ performance and contributions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, K. R., Garp, K., Nellemann, K., Nielsen, F. M., & ORngreen, R. (2014). A framework for the analysis of collaborative and interactive elements in MOOCs. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference on e-Learning, Denmark.

  • Baranon, R., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45, 36–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., & Cantwell, A. M. (2010). Undergraduate time use and academic outcomes: results from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey 2006. Teachers College Record, 112, 2441–2470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2008). The two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement. Research in Higher Education, 49, 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, M., Ragupathi, K., Kan, M., Tan, B. (2015). Towards feasible instructor intervention in MOOC discussion forums. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth International Conference on Information Science (pp. 2483–2491). Fort Worth, TX, USA: Association for Information Systems.

  • Cheng, C. K., Pare, D. E., Collimore, L. M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56, 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, A. M., & Hartmann, B. (2014). Chatrooms in MOOCs: all talk and no action. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 127–136). ACM.

  • Conole, G. (2015). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/conole.pdf.

  • De Lange, P., Suwardy, T., & Mavondo, F. (2003). Integrating a virtual learning environment into an introductory accounting course: determinants of student motivation. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 12, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, P. I., & Marcus, D. (1982). Education as a humanizing experience. In P. I. Dressel & D. Marcus (Eds.), On teaching and learning in college: Reemphasizing the rules of learners and the disciplines (pp. 32–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A., & McNamara, R. (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21, 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, U. (2004). Quality in e-learning. The learner as a key quality assurance category. European Journal of Vocational Training, 29, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. J., Baker, R. B., & Dee, T. S. (2016). Persistence Patterns in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Journal of Higher Education, 87, 206–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 374–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, C. A., McNamara, S. D., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. Q. (2004). Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X. Q., Hu, Y. L., & Cai, H. Y. (2013). Appeal and response to the development of MOOCs’ localization in China. Journal of Distance Education, 5, 3–11. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, G. F., & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most? Innovative Higher Education, 37, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, P. J. H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision Support Systems, 53, 782–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. S., Pangburn, B. E., & Mathews, R. C. (2000). Web-based multimedia development techniques for the instruction of abstract concepts in computer science. Multimedia Software Engineering, 2000. Proceedings. International Symposium on (pp. 419–426). IEEE.

  • Jiang, S. S. (2016). The relationship between disciplines and student involvement of research university undergraduate. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Hunan University, China.

  • Kane, K. (2004). Quality matters: Inter-institutional quality assurance in online learning. Sloan-C View: Perspectives in Quality Online Education, 3, 136–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey, K. D., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, K. E. (2002). Agriculture education at a distance: Let’s hear from the students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 97, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & Osland, J. (1990). Organizational behavior: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Graduate Theses and Dissertations.

  • Kress, A. M. (2006). Identifying what matters to students: Improving satisfaction and defining priorities at Santa Fe Community College. In J. A. Seybert (Ed.), Benchmarking: An essential tool for assessment, improvement, and accountabiliy. New Directions for Community Colleges (pp. 37–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulasekara, G., Jayatilleke, B., & Coomaraswarmy, U. (2011). Learner perceptions on instructional design of multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 26, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14, 158–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Liu, N. (2015). Towards a MOOC quality assurance framework. Open Education Research, 21, 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mao, C., Yu, H., Shi, J., Cai, T., & Yang, B. (2017). Automated interactive visualization on abstract concepts in computer science. GSTF Journal of Computing, 5, 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). Major Differences: Examining Student Engagement by Field of Study—Annual Results 2010. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2010_Results/pdf/NSSE_2010_AnnualResults.pdf.

  • Nkuyubwatsi, B. (2013). Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective. Paper presented at the European Conference on eLearning, Nice, France.

  • Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54, 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perera, L., & Richardson, P. (2010). Students’ use of online academic resources within a course web site and its relationship with their course performance: An exploratory study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 19, 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond students’ perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 6, 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G., & Killian, T. S. (2001). Reported gains in student learning: Do academic disciplines make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 42, 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, T. C., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderation. The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, L., & McNary, S. W. (2011). Understanding students’ online interaction: Analysis of discussion board postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, J. R., & Williams, M. W. (2012). Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Beijing: China Machine Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrun, S. (2012). Higher education 2.0. Retrieved from, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk.

  • Thurmond, V., & Wambach, K. (2004) Understanding interactions in distance education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm.

  • Willging, A. P., & Johnson, D. S. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xing, W. L., & Goggins, S. (2016). Building models explaining student participation behavior in asynchronous online discussion. Computers & Education, 94, 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 54. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.

  • Yang, D., Piergallini, M., Howley, I., & Rose, C. (2014). Forum thread recommendation for massive open online courses. In Stamper, J., Pardos, Z., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. (pp. 257–260). London, UK: International Educational Data Mining Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M. C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National High-tech R&D Program (No. 2014AA015103) and by the Self-determined Research Funds of CCNU from the Colleges’ Basic Research and Operation of MOE, China (Nos. CCNU15A05049, CCNU16JYKX38).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, China

    Junyi Li, Yun Tang, Meng Cao & Xiangen Hu

  2. Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, Wuhan, 430079, China

    Junyi Li, Yun Tang & Xiangen Hu

  3. School of Teacher Education and Psychology, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, 610101, China

    Junyi Li

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Tennessee, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Meng Cao & Xiangen Hu

Authors
  1. Junyi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yun Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meng Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiangen Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Tang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study used data available in the public domain. Ethical approval and informed consent was not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Tang, Y., Cao, M. et al. The moderating effects of discipline on the relationship between asynchronous discussion and satisfaction with MOOCs. J. Comput. Educ. 5, 279–296 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0112-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0112-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation