Exploring the configurations of learner satisfaction with MOOCs designed for computer science courses based on integrated LDA-QCA method (original) (raw)

References

• Almatrafi, O., & Johri, A. (2019). Systematic review of discussion forums in massive open online courses (MOOCs). IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2859304
  Article Google Scholar
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290002400104
  Article Google Scholar
• Ayebi-Arthur, K., Barfi, K. A., Arkorful, V., Ocran, T., & Baffour, N. O. (2023). Leveraging computer technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate learning. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11963-7
  Article Google Scholar
• Badali, M., Hatami, J., Farrokhnia, M., & Noroozib, O. (2022). The effects of using Merrill’s first principles of instruction on learning and satisfaction in MOOC. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1813187
  Article Google Scholar
• Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44–56.
  Google Scholar
• Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., Rosario, L. S., & d. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7321–7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x
  Article Google Scholar
• Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: A reevaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 339–352. 407.
  Google Scholar
• Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993–1022.
  Google Scholar
• Blum, E. R., Stenfors, T., & Palmgren, P. J. (2020). Benefits of massive open online course participation: deductive thematic analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e17318. https://doi.org/10.2196/17318
  Article Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67.
  Google Scholar
• Borrella, I., Caballero-Caballero, S., & Ponce-Cueto, E. (2022). Taking action to reduce dropout in MOOCs: Tested interventions. Computers & Education, 179, 104412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104412
  Article Google Scholar
• Bradford, G. R. (2011). A relationship study of student satisfaction with learning online and cognitive load: Initial results. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.001
  Article Google Scholar
• Brinton, C. G., Rill, R., Ha, S., & Chiang, M. (2014). Individualization for education at scale: MIIC design and preliminary evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2370635
  Article Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Tian, Z. (2022). Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital transformation: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 139, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.048
  Article Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Gao, Q., & Yuan, Q. (2020). Discovering MOOC learner motivation and its moderating role. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(12), 1257–1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520
  Article Google Scholar
• Chirikov, I., Semenova, T., & Maloshonok, N. (2020). Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost. Science Advances, 6(15), eaay5324. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay5324
  Article Google Scholar
• Deng, R., & Benckendorff, P. (2017). A contemporary review of research methods adopted to understand students’ and instructors’ use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(8), 601–607. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.8.939
  Article Google Scholar
• Elia, G., Solazzo, G., Lorenzo, G., & Passiante, G. (2019). Assessing learners’ satisfaction in collaborative online courses through a big data approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.033
  Article Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
  Article Google Scholar
• Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462
  Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
• Garrido, C. M., Olazabalaga, I. M., & Ruiz, U. G. (2015). Design, Motivation and Performance in a Cooperative MOOC Course. Comunicar, 23(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-02
  Article Google Scholar
• Greckhamer, T. (2016). CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2370
  Article Google Scholar
• Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270187864
  Article Google Scholar
• 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
  Article Google Scholar
• Hew, K. F. (2016). 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
  Article Google Scholar
• Hew, K. F., Hu, X., & Qiao, C. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach. Computers & Education, 145, 103724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724
  Article Google Scholar
• Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
  Article Google Scholar
• Hossain, M. N., Talukder, M. S., Khayer, A., & Bao, K. A. (2021). Investigating the factors driving adult learners’ continuous intention to use M-learning application: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2019-0071
  Article Google Scholar
• Joo, Y. J., So, H.-J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Examination of relationships among students’ self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers & Education, 122, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003
  Article Google Scholar
• Kara, M., & Can, G. (2019). Master’s students’ perceptions and expectations of good tutors and advisors in distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.3674
  Article Google Scholar
• Kara, M., Kukul, V., & Çakır, R. (2021). Self-regulation in three types of online interaction: How does it predict online pre-service teachers’ perceived learning and satisfaction? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00509-x
  Article Google Scholar
• Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2021). Educational scalability in MOOCs: Analysing instructional designs to find best practices. Computers & Education, 161, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104054
  Article Google Scholar
• Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2011). Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. Routledge.
  Google Scholar
• Kilburn, B., Kilburn, A., & Davis, D. (2016). Building collegiate e-loyalty: The role of perceived value in the quality-loyalty linkage in online higher education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(3), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v9i3.9704
  Article Google Scholar
• Knox, J. (2017). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer.
• Koufakou, A. (2023). Deep learning for opinion mining and topic classification of course reviews.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11736-2
• Kumar, P., & Kumar, N. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 173, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.041
  Article Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. H., Yang, H. H., MacLeod, J., & Dai, J. J. (2019). Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: Examination of the connected classroom climate. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4010
  Article Google Scholar
• Li, K. (2019). MOOC learners’ demographics, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived learning and satisfaction: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 132, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.003
  Article Google Scholar
• Li, L. Y., Johnson, J., Aarhus, W., & Shah, D. (2022). Key factors in MOOC pedagogy based on NLP sentiment analysis of learner reviews: What makes a hit. Computers & Education, 176, 104354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104354
  Article Google Scholar
• Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
  Article Google Scholar
• Lockee, B. B. (2021). Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics, 4, 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0
  Article Google Scholar
• Lu, Y. F., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. B. (2019). Understanding key drivers of MOOC satisfaction and continuance intention to use. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 20(2), 105–117.
  MathSciNet Google Scholar
• Martin, F., Bolliger, D. U., & Flowers, C. (2021). Design matters: Development and validation of the Online Course Design Elements (OCDE) instrument. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5187
  Article Google Scholar
• Mattke, J., Maier, C., & Weitzel, T. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis in the information systems discipline: A literature review and methodological recommendations. Internet Research, 31(5), 1493–1517. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-09-2020-0529
  Article Google Scholar
• Melendez-Torres, G. J., Sutcliffe, K., Burchett, H. E. D., Rees, R., & Thomas, J. (2019). Developing and testing intervention theory by incorporating a views synthesis into a qualitative comparative analysis of intervention effectiveness. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(3), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1341
  Article Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2023). China has over 500,000 open online courses. Retrieved September 25, 2022, from http://wap.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2022/54324/mtbd/202203/t20220329_611849.html
• Pande, J., & Mythili, G. (2021). Investigating student satisfaction with online courses: A case study of Uttarakhand open university. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 17(3), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20210701.oa2
  Article Google Scholar
• Pavlinek, M., & Podgorelec, V. (2017). Text classification method based on self-training and LDA topic models. Expert Systems with Applications, 80(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.020
  Article Google Scholar
• Rabin, E., Kalman, Y. M., & Kalz, M. (2019). An empirical investigation of the antecedents of learner-centered outcome measures in MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0144-3
  Article Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago The University of Chicago Press.
• Rawat, S., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2021). A systematic analysis using classification machine learning algorithms to understand why learners drop out of MOOCs. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(21), 14823–14835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06122-3
  Article Google Scholar
• Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Routledge.
  Book Google Scholar
• Rekha, I. S., Shetty, J., & Basri, S. (2023). Students’ continuance intention to use MOOCs: Empirical evidence from India. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4265–4286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11308-w
  Article Google Scholar
• Rey-Martí, A., & Felício, J. A. (2017). Entrepreneurial attributes for success in the small hotel sector: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2085–2100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0466-3
  Article Google Scholar
• Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. SAGE Publications Inc.
  Book Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Miquel-Romero, M. J. (2019). Higher education instructors’ intention to use educational video games: An fsQCA approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1455–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09656-5
  Article Google Scholar
• Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2016). Case studies nested in fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency: Formalizing case selection and causal inference. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 526–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241145324
  Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
• Singh, A. K., & Meena, M. K. (2023). Online teaching in Indian higher education institutions during the pandemic time. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11942-y
  Article Google Scholar
• Vacca, M., Wang, J. C., Graziano, M., Roch, M. R., & Zamboni, M. (2014). Feedbacks in QCA: A quantitative approach. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 23(10), 2233–2243. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVLSI.2014.2358495
• Wang, Y. H., & Huang, L. (2021). A Thematic Portfolio and Recommended Study on the Usefulness of Online Medical Reviews Based on QCA Methods. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing.
• Wei, X. X., & Taecharungroj, V. (2022). How to improve learning experience in MOOCs an analysis of online reviews of business courses on Coursera. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100675
  Article Google Scholar
• Wengrowicz, N., Swart, W., & Paul, R. (2018). Students’ collaborative learning attitudes and their satisfaction with online collaborative case-based courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1511509
  Article Google Scholar
• Wu, B., & Wang, Y. F. (2022). Formation mechanism of popular courses on MOOC platforms: A configurational approach. Computers & Education, 191, 104629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104629
  Article Google Scholar
• Wu, P. L., Yeh, S. S., Huan, T. C., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1647–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.012
  Article Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. C., Hsieh, L. F., & Lu, J. J. (2015). What’s the relationship between learning satisfaction and continuing learning intention? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2849–2854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.148
  Article Google Scholar
• Xiao, J., Zeng, P., Ren, G., & Zhang, L. M. (2023a). How to drive strategic green innovation behavior? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) based on Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 77784–77797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27834-0
  Article Google Scholar
• Xiao, W., Lu, F., & Ji, Y. M. (2023b). What Kind of Online Courses are Popular with Learners?—Based on Text Mining and Configuration Analysis of 15 Online Course Reviews. e-Education Research, 44(05), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2023.05.008
• Ye, W. J., & Lee, A. J. T. (2021). Mining sentiment tendencies and summaries from consumer reviews. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 19(1), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00482-4
  Article Google Scholar
• Zankadi, H., Idrissi, A., Daoudi, N., & Hilal, I. (2023). Identifying learners’ topical interests from social media content to enrich their course preferences in MOOCs using topic modeling and NLP techniques. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 5567–5584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11373-1
  Article Google Scholar
• Zheng, L., Ulrich, K., & Sendra-García, J. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 128, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.044
  Article Google Scholar

Download references