Students’ Perceptions towards Using MOOCs Platform in Ideological and Political Courses
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The integration of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in higher education has transformed traditional learning methods, particularly in ideological and political education (IPE). This study examines students' perceptions of using MOOCs for IPE courses at a vocational university, focusing on factors influencing satisfaction and continuance intention. Drawing on the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) and the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) model, the research investigates how perceived usefulness, confirmation, task-technology fit, and learning engagement affect students’ satisfaction and their intention to continue using MOOCs. Moreover, the study advances theory by integrating the ECM and TTF frameworks, highlighting the mediating role of satisfaction and providing a nuanced explanation of continuance intention in the context of IPE.
Results: A quantitative approach was employed, surveying 248 students to analyze their experiences. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships between variables.
Results: The results indicate that perceived usefulness significantly influences satisfaction (β = 0.42, p < 0.001), and confirmation has a significant positive effect on satisfaction (β = 0.38, p < 0.001). Task-technology fit and learning engagement also positively impact satisfaction (β = 0.35 and 0.31, respectively, p < 0.001). Additionally, satisfaction significantly affects students’ continuance intention (β = 0.47, p < 0.001), with perceived usefulness, task-technology fit, and learning engagement playing crucial roles in shaping students’ willingness to continue using MOOCs.
Conclusion: The findings underscore the importance of course design, interactive content, and platform usability in enhancing learning outcomes. The study provides empirical support for the theoretical integration of ECM and TTF in explaining MOOCs continuance, offering valuable insights for optimizing MOOCs in IPE.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Albelbısı, N. A., & Yusop, F. D. (2019). Factors influencing learners’ self–regulated learning skills in a massive open online course (MOOC) environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(3), 1–16.
Alyoussef, I. Y. (2021). E-learning acceptance: The role of task–technology fit as sustainability in higher education. Sustainability, 13(11), 6450.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2014). System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 349–362.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201–214.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bhattacherjee, A., Perols, J., & Sanford, C. (2008). Information technology continuance: A theoretic extension and empirical test. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(1), 17–26.
Chang, H. H. (2010). Task-technology fit and user acceptance of online auction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 69–89.
Cheng, Y. M. (2022). Which quality determinants cause MOOCs continuance intention? A hybrid extending the expectation-confirmation model with learning engagement and information systems success. Library Hi Tech. Advance online publication.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399–416.
Cho, I., Song, H.-J., Kim, H., & Sul, S. (2020). Older adults consider others' intentions less but allocentric outcomes more than young adults during an ultimatum game. Psychology and Aging, 35(7), 974–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000577
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Foroughi, B., Iranmanesh, M., Hyun, S. S., & Nikbin, D. (2019). Identifying the critical factors in adopting a sustainable system: A case of a green energy adoption program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.267
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.
Fu, J., Shang, R. A., Jeyaraj, A., Sun, Y., & Hu, F. (2020). Interaction between task characteristics and technology affordances: Task-technology fit and enterprise social media usage. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(1), 1–22.
Goodhue, D. L. (1995). Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science, 41(12), 1827–1844.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Haertel, G. D. (2006). The internal consistency of scales: What do we really know? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 591–596.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Huang, L. (2016). Expectation-confirmation model. In M. R. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
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.
Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341–358.
Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.
Li, K., Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., & Guo, W. (2017). Integrating MOOC and flipped classroom practice in a traditional undergraduate course: Students’ experience and perceptions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 34.
Lin, C. S., Wu, S., & Tsai, R. J. (2005). Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context. Information & Management, 42(5), 683–693.
Liu, Q., Shao, Z., Tang, J., & Fan, W. (2019). Examining the influential factors for continued social media use: A comparison of social networking and microblogging. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(5), 1104–1127.
Liu, Y., Zhang, M., Qi, D., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Understanding the role of learner engagement in determining MOOCs satisfaction: A self-determination theory perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 6084–6098.
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
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496–508.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). Teachers College Press.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Ouyang, R., Hew, K. F., & Chen, W. (2017). A comparison between technology-enhanced learning with and without social media integration: The role of self-regulated learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1396662
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497.
Rai, N., & Thapa, B. (2015). A study on purposive sampling method in research. Kathmandu: Kathmandu School of Law, 5(1), 8–15.
Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. EDUCAUSE Review, 49(6), 56–61.
Ren, W., Ye, W., Zhang, X., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2021). The exploration and practice of curriculum ideological and political education in the MOOCs of colleges and universities. South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(6), 72–83.
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., & Martínez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003
Selwyn, N. (2011). Technology, media and education: telling the whole story. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 211-213.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943.
Sun, P. C., & Rueda, R. (2012). The development of a scale to measure engagement in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 75–85.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Wang, T., Lin, C. L., & Su, Y. S. (2021). Continuance intention of university students and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Sustainability, 13(8), 4586.
Wang, Y., Wang, L., Lin, L., & Su, Y.-S. (2022). Investigating continuance intention toward online learning: The moderating role of cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1046407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1046407
Wang, Z., & Liu, S. (2020). A review of the development of MOOCs in China. China & World Economy, 28(2), 46–61.
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. JISC CETIS.
Zhao, Y., Li, L., Zhang, H., & Chen, W. (2020). The impact of institutional support on online learning adoption. Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 89–105.
Zheng, L., Han, Y., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). The role of social media in MOOCs’ learning experience: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17, 101–124.
