You are here:

The Validation of the MOOC Learner Engagement and Motivation Scale
PROCEEDING

, , The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Amsterdam, Netherlands Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

The advent of massive open online course (MOOC) has fueled much attention among educators in recent years. Student engagement in these large-scale open courses is still not well understood. Compared to conventional face-to-face (f2f) settings in which learners usually share the same academic goals, are familiar with one another, and are supervised closely by the teacher, MOOC learners do not know their peers, are not supervised by the teacher, and are under no expectation to complete the course. This study offers a new contribution by validating a MOOC Engagement-Motivation (MEM) Scale based on the self-determination theory of motivation (autonomy, relatedness, and competence), and the theory of engagement (behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement). The MEM Scale was developed based on previously validated instruments used in f2f contexts. A total of 872 self-reported MEM surveys from MOOC learners were collected to test the structure of the motivation scale and the engagement scale in MOOC context. The face validity was satisfied. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted and the results showed that both the motivation and engagement structures of the scale were validated and reliable in MOOC context. Several less fitting items were removed from the scales to better fit the models in MOOC context. Finally, compared to the non-completion group, the participants who completed the MOOC demonstrated stronger relationships among the factors in the two scales.

Citation

Lan, M. & Hew, K.F. (2018). The Validation of the MOOC Learner Engagement and Motivation Scale. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1625-1636). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 31, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agarwal, A. (2012). 'Circuits and Electronics', MITx. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B10.
  2. Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massive online courses. Paper
  3. Bollen, K.A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods& Research, 17(3), 303-316.
  4. Chiu, K., & Hew, K. (2017). Factors influencing peer learning and performance in MOOC asynchronous online discussion forum. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 16-28.
  5. Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M.A., & Hartmann, B. (2014). Should your MOOC forum use a reputation system? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work& Social computing.
  6. Coffrin, C., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., & Kennedy, G. (2014). Visualizing patterns of student engagement and performance in MOOCs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge.
  7. Courtney, K.K. (2013). The MOOC syllabus blues: Strategies for MOOCs and syllabus materials. College& Research Libraries News, 74(10), 514-517.
  8. Darr, C.W. (2012). Measuring student engagement: The development of a scale for formative use Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 707-723): Springer.
  9. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior: Springer Science& Business Media.
  10. Finn, J.D., & Zimmer, K.S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131): Springer.
  11. Fornell, C. (1983). Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: A comment. Journal of consumer research, 9(4), 443-448.
  12. Fox, A. (2013). From moocs to spocs. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38-40.
  13. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  14. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 95(1), 148.
  15. Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26.
  16. Goodboy, A.K., Martin, M.M., & Bolkan, S. (2009). The development and validation of the student communication satisfaction scale. Communication Education, 58(3), 372-396.
  17. Gore, H. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and their impact on academic library services: Exploring the issues and challenges. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(1), 4-28.
  18. Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2014). Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges Educ. Res. Rev. (Vol. 12, pp. 45-58).
  19. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
  20. Jansen, R.S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Kester, L., & Kalz, M. (2017). Validation of the self-regulated online learning questionnaire. Journal of computing in higher education, 29(1), 6-27.
  21. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (ed.). NY: Guilford Publication: Inc.
  22. Kline, R.B., & Santor, D.A. (1999). Principles& Practice of structural equation modelling. Canadian Psychology, 40(4), 381.
  23. Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18.
  24. Lamborn, S., Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools, 11-39.
  25. Lee, E., Pate, J.A., & Cozart, D. (2015). Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends, 59(4), 54-61.
  26. Lombardi, M.M. (2013). The inside story: Campus decision making in the wake of the latest MOOC Tsunami. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 239-248.
  27. Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, University of Lancaster, Lancaster.
  28. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V.V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 60(1), 48 58.
  29. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1992). Instructional discourse and student engagement. In S. DH & M.J (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149-179). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  30. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
  31. Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012.
  32. Rotgans, J.I., & Schmidt, H.G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in health sciences education, 16(4), 465-479.
  33. Roth, M.S. (2013). My Modern Experience Teaching a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education.
  34. Schreiber, J.B., Nora, A., Stage, F.K., Barlow, E.A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.
  35. Schunk, D.H., & Mullen, C.A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219-235): Springer.
  36. Shah, D. (2018). By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc stats-2017/
  37. Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J.J., Fahlman, M., & Garn, A.C. (2012). Urban high-school girls’ sense of relatedness and their engagement in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 31(3), 231-245.
  38. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 100(4), 765.
  39. Standage, M., Duda, J.L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self‐determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 411-433.
  40. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis.
  41. Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 200.
  42. Wang, Q., & Woo, H.L. (2006). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face ‐to‐face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272-286.
  43. Wu, K. (2013). Academic libraries in the age of MOOCs. Reference Services Review, 41(3), 576-587.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts